April, 09 2020, 12:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Melissa Hornbein, Western Environmental Law Center, 406-708-3058, hornbein@westernlaw.org
Natasha Léger, Citizens for a Healthy Community, 970-399-9700, natasha@chc4you.org
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, 801-300-2414, tmckinnon@biologicaldiversity.org
Sumer Shaikh, Sierra Club, 774-545-0128, sumer.shaikh@sierraclub.org
Sumer Shaikh, Sierra Club, 774-545-0128, sumer.shaikh@sierraclub.org
Rebecca Fischer, WildEarth Guardians, 406-698-1489-rfischer@wildearthguardians.org
Trump Administration Plan Expands Fossil Fuel Extraction Across Southwestern Colorado at Expense of Ag, Endangered Species, Recreation
The Trump administration today announced the release of its final plan
WASHINGTON
The Trump administration today announced the release of its final plan to expand drilling and fracking and other fossil fuel extraction across southwestern Colorado for the next two decades, threatening organic agriculture, recreation and endangered species while undermining the state's climate law. It will be published in the Federal Register on Friday.
The Bureau of Land Management's final Uncompahgre land-management plan and record of decision will guide the use of public lands across nearly 1.7 million acres of mountains, woodlands and red-rock deserts for decades to come.
"The Uncompahgre land-management plan gives the initial green light to widespread, long-term oil and gas development in the ecologically sensitive North Fork Valley," said Melissa Hornbein with the Western Environmental Law Center. "This plan, unconscionable as the connections between fossil fuel emissions and global climate change become clearer every day, has the potential to exponentially increase greenhouse gas pollution in the region over the next decade, when we need to be drastically reducing emissions."
"It makes no climate, ecological or economic sense to drill in the North Fork Valley," said Natasha Leger, executive director of Citizens for a Healthy Community. "This is exactly the type of federal action that is responsible for accelerating climate and environmental degradation, which cannot be allowed to stand if we have any hope of protecting present and future generations, rare and irreplaceable ecosystems like the North Fork, and meeting Colorado's goals for a clean and renewable energy future."
The plan ignores 42,000 public comments in opposition, as well as problems identified in the groups' July protest. The agency refused to consider alternatives to curb fossil-fuel leasing and failed to analyze how expanding fracking and drilling could harm organic agriculture, the climate and endangered species like the Colorado pikeminnow and Gunnison sage grouse. The conservation groups are asking the BLM to redo its environmental impact statement and support a plan that recommends no new leasing.
"This dangerous plan ignores climate science and steamrolls the communities that care deeply about these beautiful public lands," said Diana Dascalu-Joffe, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Coloradoans understand that we must end fracking to avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis. We'll do everything possible to prevent this reckless plan from becoming reality."
The BLM's oil and gas production forecast shows the plan would increase climate pollution in the region by more than 2,300 percent over the next decade. Colorado's new law calls for cutting greenhouse gas pollution in half by 2030.
"The plan would severely undermine Colorado's climate goals and entrench the North Fork Valley in decades of dirty fossil fuel extraction," said Rebecca Fischer, climate and energy program attorney for WildEarth Guardians. "Ultimately, the Trump administration is testing Colorado's commitment to its new climate law, and its success depends on the state stepping up to defend bold climate action."
The plan would allow fracking on more than half of the 675,000 acres of public land and almost a million acres of federal minerals that it covers, and coal extraction on another 371,000 acres. The BLM's environmental impact analysis fails to tally direct and indirect climate pollution that would result from fossil fuel production.
Meanwhile a draft plan for eastern Colorado, released by the Trump administration in June, would triple annual greenhouse gas pollution from oil and gas development by 2037. These two plans will dictate public-land management in Colorado for decades.
"The Trump administration's effort to expand drilling on lands in the midst of a climate crisis is reckless," said Kim Pope, organizing representative for the Sierra Club. "Time and again, the BLM makes dangerous land management decisions at the expense of communities and wildlife. Instead of this backward agenda, the Bureau of Land Management must prioritize the input of the public and work with them to protect lands and communities to slow climate disruption."
The region includes the North Fork Valley and Telluride, areas that support exceptional outdoor recreation and Colorado's burgeoning organic agriculture hub. The area also includes numerous threatened and endangered species, including Colorado pikeminnows, razorback suckers, greenback cutthroat trout and Gunnison sage grouse.
Background
Fossil fuel production on public lands causes about a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution. Peer-reviewed science estimates that a nationwide federal fossil fuel leasing ban would reduce carbon emissions by 280 million tons per year, ranking it among the most ambitious federal climate policy proposals in recent years.
Federal fossil fuels that have not been leased to industry contain up to 450 billion tons of potential climate pollution; those already leased to industry contain up to 43 billion tons. Pollution from already-leased fossil fuels on federal lands, if fully developed, would essentially exhaust the U.S. carbon budget for a 1.5 degree Celsius target.
Existing laws give Congress and presidents the authority to end new federal fossil fuel leasing. Hundreds of organizations have already petitioned the federal government to end new onshore and offshore leasing.
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
'Do Not Get Numb to This': Trump Admin Kills 3 More People in Caribbean
"The illegality is compounding," said one expert. "Every strike takes us farther from the rule of law."
Feb 24, 2026
The ramp-up of deadly boat bombings in the Caribbean since General Francis L. Donovan took over as head of US Southern Command continued on Monday, with three more people killed in a strike on a vessel that the Department of Defense claimed was operated by "Designated Terrorist Organizations."
Donovan took over as commander of US Southern Command on February 5 following the abrupt retirement of Admiral Alvin Hosley, who had reportedly raised concerns about the Pentagon's campaign of striking boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean—a policy that Trump administration officials have insisted is aimed at stopping drug trafficking from Venezuela.
Venezuela plays virtually no role in the trafficking of fentanyl, the drug involved in most overdoses in the US, and the administration has provided no evidence that the dozens of strikes it's carried out since September have actually been aimed at drug trafficking boats.
Even if the targets were involved in transporting illicit substances to the US, legal experts say the strikes have violated international law.
Following the attack on Monday, the death toll in the Trump administration's maritime operations in the region since September has reached at least 150, and Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America emphasized that this month, there has been a clear acceleration of boat bombings.
Twenty-five people have been killed in the administration's boat attacks in just 19 days.
"None posed imminent threats," said Isacson. "None faced more than an accusation of guilt for a non-capital crime—'take our word for it.' The illegality is compounding. Every strike takes us farther from the rule of law."
"Do not get numb to this," he added.
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said Southern Command's killing of three people Monday amounted to "more summary executions."
On Sunday, after another strike that killed three people, the Freedom of the Press Foundation noted that "despite the rising death toll, the government’s legal rationale for these likely illegal attacks remains secret."
"By keeping the legal justifications hidden, the government is sidestepping accountability for what appear to be extrajudicial killings," said Lauren Harper, the group's Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy.
President Donald Trump told Congress in October that the US is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels. At the time, Gregory Corn, a former senior adviser for law-of-war issues for the US Army, said the president was crossing a "major legal line."
The boat bombing campaign led up to the US government's invasion of Venezuela in January and its abduction of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who were brought to the US and charged with drug trafficking. They pleaded not guilty in court last month. Since that military operation, the Trump administration has sought to take control of Venezuela's oil.
Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have spoken out against the boat bombings and have introduced war powers resolutions to stop the US from continuing the campaign and from attacking Venezuela, but so far, the vast majority of GOP lawmakers have voted down the efforts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admits War Would Be Disastrous for Ordinary Iranians as He Weighs Military Assault
"The stakes are clear," said the National Iranian American Council. "There’s a chance to avert war and disastrous outcomes for the people of Iran, but time may be running out."
Feb 24, 2026
President Donald Trump admitted Monday that a US assault on Iran would be disastrous for the Middle East nation's people as he considers options for a military attack, reportedly drawing private warnings from the United States' top general.
In a Truth Social post, Trump pushed back against reports that Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has voiced concerns about the potentially massive risks of attacking Iran, a country of more than 90 million people. Trump has previously claimed that Caine believed any military conflict with Iran would be "something easily won."
"He has not spoken of not doing Iran, or even the fake limited strikes that I have been reading about, he only knows one thing, how to WIN and, if he is told to do so, he will be leading the pack," Trump wrote of Caine in his Monday post.
The US president—who blew up a landmark diplomatic agreement with Iran during his first term—added that if a new deal with the Iranian government doesn't materialize, "it will be a very bad day for that Country and, very sadly, its people, because they are great and wonderful, and something like this should never have happened to them."
Trump's acknowledgment that a US military assault would likely be devastating for ordinary Iranians runs counter to the narrative pushed by supporters of war, who claim conflict and regime change is necessary to aid Iran's population.
"The stakes are clear," the National Iranian American Council, an advocacy organization that has vocally opposed a US attack on Iran, wrote late Monday. "President Trump himself says that war with Iran will mean a 'very bad day' for Iran and 'very sadly, its people.' There’s a chance to avert war and disastrous outcomes for the people of Iran, but time may be running out."
Lawmakers in the US House of Representatives are expected to vote this week on a resolution aimed at preventing war with Iran without congressional authorization, but the measure stands little chance of reaching Trump's desk.
The president, meanwhile, has shown no indication that he intends to seek congressional authorization for any attack on Iran. One poll conducted earlier this month showed that just 21% of Americans would support the Trump administration "initiating an attack on Iran."
The New York Times reported over the weekend that Trump is considering an "initial targeted US attack" on Iran followed by "a much bigger attack in the coming months" if the nation's government doesn't capitulate to Washington's demands, principally that Iran abandon its nuclear program. Negotiators from the US and Iran are scheduled to meet in Geneva later this week.
"Behind the scenes, a new proposal is being considered by both sides that could create an off-ramp to military conflict: a very limited nuclear enrichment program that Iran could carry out solely for purposes of medical research and treatments," the Times reported. "It is unclear whether either side would agree. But the last-minute proposal comes as two aircraft carrier groups and dozens of fighter jets, bombers,k and refueling aircraft are now massing within striking distance of Iran."
Multiple outlets reported Monday that Caine, the top US general, has offered warnings about the potential risks of attacking Iran. According to the Washington Post, Caine voiced concerns at a recent White House meeting that "any major operation against Iran will face challenges because the US munitions stockpile has been significantly depleted by Washington’s ongoing defense of Israel and support for Ukraine."
The Trump administration's march to war with Iran has also drawn significant outside opposition.
Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said Monday that "like the June 2025 bombings that failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, another US strike would be an illegal act of war."
"As with his false claims that last year’s attack had ‘completely and totally obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear capacity, the president has now dropped the pretense that military intervention would be aimed at protecting Iranian protestors who bravely faced a deadly crackdown to demonstrate against the regime’s many human rights violations," said Duss.
"With Trump sending mixed signals over the timing and scope of possible strikes—and given his record of attacking even when active diplomacy is taking place—Congress must act swiftly to make clear that the president does not have its authorization for the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iran," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Republican Lawmakers' Bid to Execute Tennessee Abortion Patients Slammed as 'Christofascism'
"This is about the future of the anti-abortion movement in the Republican Party and the way that they are embracing extremism at a rate that is so fucking alarming," said one critic.
Feb 23, 2026
“If you kill a baby from embryo on up with a pill or a scalpel, we oughta execute you."
That's not social media rage bait by some random zealot, it's the premise of legislation recently introduced by Republican state lawmakers in Tennessee to make abortion a capital offense, as voiced by one of the measure's sponsors. And it's setting off alarm bells in recent days across a nation in which attacks on remaining reproductive rights have been accelerating in the years since the right-wing US Supreme Court overturned its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling nearly four years ago.
An amendment to HB 570/SB 738 was filed by primary sponsors Rep. Jody Barrett (R-69) and Sen. Mark Pody (R-17) and co-sponsored by five of their GOP colleagues, all men, including Rep. Monty Fritts (R-32), who is also running for governor—and who is the source of the quote in this article's lede. Fritts spoke those words at a meeting in Jonesborough, where TN Repro News publisher Rachel Wells last year interviewed a pregnant woman who was allegedly denied prenatal care under Tennessee's Medical Ethics Defense Act because she is unmarried to her partner of 15 years.
If passed, Barrett and Pody's amendment—which was still adding co-sponsors as of Monday—would classify abortion as "homicide of an unborn child," punishable by life imprisonment with or without parole—or even death by lethal injection. The measure contains very narrow exceptions, including for spontaneous miscarriage or when abortion is needed to save a mother's life. The amendment is currently under committee review has not yet been scheduled for a vote.
Tennessee already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the United States, with a near-total ban on the procedure in effect since Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed it in August 2022. Abortion is banned from fertilization, with limited exceptions.
While religious groups including the Southern Baptist Convention and Foundation to Abolish Abortion hailed the proposal as a life-saving measure that serves the will of the Abrahamic deity figure "God," reproductive rights defenders expressed alarm and outrage.
"We are talking about a gubernatorial candidate openly calling for women who end their pregnancies to be charged with a capital crime and spend their life in prison or for the to get the death penalty. That is where we're at right now," Abortion, Every Day publisher Jessica Valenti said in a video posted on social media.
"This is not just about this one guy," she continued. "This is about the future of the anti-abortion movement in the Republican Party and the way that they are embracing extremism at a rate that is so fucking alarming."
Meet Rep. Monty Fritts— a Tennessee lawmaker running for governor. If you’re one of the millions of American women who’s had an abortion, he thinks that you should be given the death penalty
[image or embed]
— Jessica Valenti (@jessicavalenti.bsky.social) February 18, 2026 at 7:57 PM
"Saying that women should be punished for having abortions was once... an unthinkable thing to say within the anti-abortion movement," Valenti added. "Now they're openly embracing it. Over a dozen states over the last year have introduced or advanced equal protection legislation... that would punish abortion patients as murders, which in some states can mean the death penalty, it could mean life in prison."
"This is not some fringe element," she stressed. "This is becoming the mainstream of the movement. Right now in Texas... the Republican Party platform calls for equal protection. It calls for the execution of women or life in prison for women who have abortions. This is not fringe."
In South Carolina, where a bill to execute people who have abortions garnered more than 20 GOP votes on its way to defeat but performing the procedure is a felony, the Sumter County Sheriff's Office last week launched an investigation into a fetus that was found at a water treatment plant. Investigators will test tissue samples from the fetus "to determine the race and locate the mother."
Numerous deaths have been attributed to abortion bans in states including Texas and Georgia.
Back in Tennessee, Fritts—who is polling at around 5-7% in the GOP gubernatorial primary, depending on the survey—has been busy defending his proposal to kill people who have abortions.
“Murder is murder. I know that’s hard for people to hear, and I don’t mean to be hard with it, I promise,” he told the Tennessee Holler, comparing abortion pills to cyanide capsules.
Fritts' campaign slogan is "liberty & less government."
Responding to Fritts' co-sponsorship of the death penalty amendment, Jon Tate's Daily Practice publisher Jon Tate wrote, "Disgusting."
"While I was busy and not paying attention, my state was apparently becoming ground zero for white-supremacist Christofascism," he added. "It breaks my brain and my heart."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


