

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.

Liz Trotter, etrotter@earthjustice.org, 305-332-5395
Alex Thompson, alex_thompson@tws.org, 860-416-0564
Legal Contacts:
Mike Freeman, mfreeman@earthjustice.org, 720-989-6896
Nada Culver, nada.culver@audubon.org, 303-807-6918
On Friday, the U.S. District Court in Montana struck down the basis for the Trump administration's massive oil and gas leasing plans on more than a million acres of public lands in key habitat for sage-grouse, an iconic bird species of the Western United States. The Trump administration attempted to gut a key part of the Bureau of Land Management's 2015 sage grouse plan which was the result of a historic effort that brought to the table conservationists, sportsmen, representatives for ranching and energy industries and government officials.
In December 2017, the Trump administration reversed course and adopted a BLM policy directive that has allowed millions of acres of oil and gas leasing in sensitive sage-grouse habitat. The court on Friday invalidated that 2017 directive and also nullified 440 oil and gas leases, covering about 336,000 acres (525 square miles), that BLM sold as part of its policy reversal.
The decision came in a lawsuit filed by Earthjustice on behalf of the Montana Wildlife Federation, the Wilderness Society, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, and Montana Audubon.
"The court's decision is not only good news for the sage-grouse, it reaffirms the historic plan that BLM worked out with farmers, ranchers, conservationists, energy groups, and government officials," said Earthjustice staff attorney Michael Freeman, who represented the plaintiffs. "It confirms that the Trump administration violated the law in bulldozing those commitments in its haste to sell off lands that are owned by all Americans to the oil and gas industry."
"The Interior Department's chickens are coming home to roost," said Brian Rutledge, director of the National Audubon Society's Sagebrush Ecosystem Initiative. "This court ruling reaffirms that the administration has continued to act in bad faith. A deal's a deal, and you can't simply bulldoze the hard fought agreements built across the West to protect the Sage-Grouse. We're hopeful that this will lead to the reversal of similarly illegal oil and gas giveaways in more states."
"We applaud the court's decision to require the federal government to honor our deal, which not only preserves habitat for the sage-grouse, mule deer and pronghorn but also protects public access to public land, maintains oil and gas development, and defends ranching and other land uses," said Tom Puchlerz, President of the Montana Wildlife Federation. "It would obviously set a terrible precedent if the feds were allowed to back out of a good faith, consensus-driven agreement."
"People across the West forged an important agreement in 2015 to protect sage grouse and an iconic landscape, and one of its core, basic elements was that the government should prioritize drilling away from sage grouse habitat. The Trump administration reversed that simple idea. That was wrong, and we're grateful this decision restores it," said Tracy Stone-Manning, Associate Vice President for Public Lands at National Wildlife Federation.
"This ruling is a much-needed check on the Trump administration's relentless effort to advance oil and gas development at the expense of important wildlife habitat and the future of our climate," said Bruce Pendery, litigation and energy policy specialist for The Wilderness Society. "This administration's continued attempts to develop oil and gas in sage-grouse habitat is an insult to the years of expert scientific analysis and valued stakeholders who have demanded the sage-grouse be left alone."
Background:
Sage-grouse once numbered in the millions across the western United States, but the bird's populations have plummeted in recent decades. BLM's 2015 conservation plans aimed to make a listing under the Endangered Species Act unnecessary, by protecting important sage-grouse habitat on public lands in ten western states. One of the key provisions is a requirement to "prioritize" new leasing outside of important habitat, in order to reduce future oil and gas development in that habitat.
In December 2017, however, BLM issued an Instruction Memorandum (the IM), which "re-interpreted" the prioritization requirement to effectively eliminate it. Under that policy reversal, BLM has leased millions of acres of sage-grouse habitat for drilling in Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, and other states.
Friday's ruling invalidated the IM as violating the terms of the 2015 sage-grouse plans. The court also struck down three lease sales in Montana and Wyoming on the same basis.
In addition to the leases set aside by the court, the court's decision impacts millions of acres of sage-grouse habitat where BLM has sold (or is proposing to sell) leases as part of implementing the IM. A July 2019 study found that both leasing and permitting for drilling in grouse habitat had increased exponentially during the Trump administration, including sale of about 1.6 million acres (2,500 square miles) of oil and gas leases in sage-grouse habitat. That leasing has continued during the past year, leading to even more significant, on-the-ground impacts from BLM's change in policy.
The 2015 plans resulted from one of the largest conservation efforts in U.S. history. The planning effort, which took nearly six years, involved intensive efforts by BLM, the U.S. Forest Service, Western governors, sportsmen, public lands users, and representatives of the oil and gas and ranching industries. The 2015 BLM protections are central to preserving the species, because 45 percent of the grouse's current habitat lies on lands managed by the BLM.
Limiting oil and gas leasing and development is a key focus of the plans because the Interior Department's own research identifies the impacts of oil and gas on sage-grouse as "universally negative and typically severe," and among the "primary threats" to the survival of the species. Sage-grouse numbers have declined to an estimated 10 percent of its historic population levels.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460"The new American oligarchy is here," said the CEO of Oxfam America. "Billionaires and mega-corporations are booming while working families struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and groceries."
New research published Monday shows that the 10 richest people in the United States have seen their collective fortune grow by nearly $700 billion since President Donald Trump secured a second term in the White House and rushed to deliver more wealth to the top in the form of tax cuts.
The billionaire wealth surge that has accompanied Trump's return to power is part of a decades-long, policy-driven trend of upward redistribution that has enriched the very few and devastated the working class, Oxfam America details in Unequal: The Rise of a New American Oligarchy and the Agenda We Need.
Between 1989 and 2022, the report shows, the least rich US household in the top 1% gained 987 times more wealth than the richest household in the bottom 20%.
As of last year, more than 40% of the US population was considered poor or low-income, Oxfam observed. In 2025, the share of total US assets owned by the wealthiest 0.1% reached its highest level on record: 12.6%.
The Trump administration—in partnership with Republicans in Congress—has added rocket fuel to the nation's out-of-control inequality, moving "with staggering speed and scale to carry out a relentless attack on working-class families" while using "the power of the office to enrich the wealthy and well-connected," Oxfam's new report states.
"The data confirms what people across our nation already know instinctively: The new American oligarchy is here," said Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America. "Billionaires and mega-corporations are booming while working families struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and groceries."
"Now, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress risk turbocharging that inequality as they wage a relentless attack on working people and bargain with livelihoods during the government shutdown," Maxman added. "But what they're doing isn't new. It's doubling down on decades of regressive policy choices. What's different is how much undemocratic power they've now amassed."
"Today, we are seeing the dark extremes of choosing inequality for 50 years."
Oxfam released its report as the Trump administration continued to illegally withhold federal nutrition assistance from tens of millions of low-income US households just months after enacting a budget law that's expected to deliver hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to ultra-rich Americans and large corporations.
Given the severity of US inequality and ongoing Trump-GOP efforts to make it worse, Oxfam stressed that a bold agenda "that focuses on rebalancing power" will be necessary to reverse course.
Such an agenda would include—but not be limited to—a wealth tax on multimillionaires and billionaires, a higher corporate tax rate, a permanently expanded child tax credit, strong antitrust policy that breaks up corporate monopolies, a federal job guarantee, universal childcare, and a substantially higher minimum wage.
"Today, we are seeing the dark extremes of choosing inequality for 50 years," Elizabeth Wilkins, president and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, wrote in her foreword to the report. "The policy priorities in this report—rebalancing power, unrigging the tax code, reimagining the social safety net, and supporting workers' rights—are all essential to creating that more inclusive and cohesive society. Together, they speak to our deepest needs as human beings: to live with security and agency, to live free from exploitation."
"Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?" asked Sen. Bernie Sanders.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday implored his Democratic colleagues in Congress not to cave to President Donald Trump and Republicans in the ongoing government shutdown fight, warning that doing so would hasten the country's descent into authoritarianism.
In an op-ed for The Guardian, Sanders (I-Vt.) called Trump a "schoolyard bully" and argued that "anyone who thinks surrendering to him now will lead to better outcomes and cooperation in the future does not understand how a power-hungry demagogue operates."
"This is a man who threatens to arrest and jail his political opponents, deploys the US military into Democratic cities, and allows masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to pick people up off the streets and throw them into vans without due process," Sanders wrote. "He has sued virtually every major media outlet because he does not tolerate criticism, has extorted funds from law firms and is withholding federal funding from states that voted against him."
If Democrats capitulate, Sanders warned, Trump "will utilize his victory to accelerate his movement toward authoritarianism."
"At a time when he already has no regard for our democratic system of checks and balances," the senator wrote, "he will be emboldened to continue decimating programs that protect elderly people, children, the sick and the poor while giving more tax breaks and other benefits to his fellow oligarchs."
Sanders' op-ed came as the shutdown continued with no end in sight, with Democrats standing by their demand for an extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits as a necessary condition for any government funding deal. Republicans have so far refused to negotiate on the ACA subsidies even as health insurance premiums skyrocket nationwide.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, is illegally withholding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding from tens of millions of Americans—including millions of children—despite court rulings ordering him to release the money.
In a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday, Trump again urged Republicans to nuke the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate to remove the need for Democratic support to reopen the government and advance other elements of their agenda unilaterally. Under the status quo, Republicans need the support of at least seven Democratic senators to advance a government funding package.
"The Republicans have to get tougher," Trump said. "If we end the filibuster, we can do exactly what we want. We're not going to lose power."
Congressional Democrats have faced some pressure from allies, most notably the head of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), to cut a deal with Republicans to end the shutdown and alleviate the suffering it has inflicted on federal workers and many others.
But Democrats appear unmoved by the AFGE president's demand, and other labor leaders have since voiced support for the minority party's effort to secure an extension of ACA subsidies.
"We're urging our Democratic friends to hold the line," said Jaime Contreras, executive vice president of the 185,000-member Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ.
In his op-ed on Sunday, Sanders asked, "Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?"
"If the Democrats cave now, it would be a betrayal of the millions of Americans who have fought and died for democracy and our Constitution," the senator wrote. "It would be a sellout of a working class that is struggling to survive in very difficult economic times. Democrats in Congress are the last remaining opposition to Trump's quest for absolute power. To surrender now would be an historic tragedy for our country, something that history will not look kindly upon."
"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."