

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"This is a sickening example of Trump and ICE's blatant disregard for humanity as they terrorize our families and communities. It is shameful, cruel, and it must end."
A man whose wife was arrested by federal immigration authorities on Thursday morning in Fitchburg, Massachusetts said Friday that his toddler daughter had been "traumatized" by the chaotic altercation during which he appeared to have a seizure and the agents threatened to take both parents away and turn the child over the state.
Carlos Sebastian Zapata told the Boston Globe that he became unconscious while trying to stop the agents from pulling his wife, Juliana Milena Zapata, away during a traffic stop at about 7:00 am while Zapata and the couple's 1-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Alaia, were taking her to work at Burger King.
Their car was suddenly surrounded by several vehicles and federal agents began banging on their windows.
When Zapata tried to stop the agents from taking his wife away, one officer "pressed on his neck," according to the Globe, and he lost consciousness while Alaia was in his arms.
As a video taken by an eyewitness showed, Zapata said he "had convulsions or something. I don’t know what they did to me, but they were pressing on my neck.”
The video appeared to show the 24-year-old father having a seizure as Alaia cried and horrified onlookers yelled at the immigration agents. Local police ordered the bystanders to stay back.
WARNING: The violence and cruelty is hard to watch, but impossible for families to endure.
This is a sickening example of Trump and ICE's blatant disregard for humanity as they terrorize our families and communities.
It is shameful, cruel, and it must end. pic.twitter.com/ZGNOYtpVMO
— Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (@RepPressley) November 7, 2025
“I wasn’t letting go of my wife because they wanted to take her away,” Zapata told the Globe. When he began having convulsions, he said, "that’s when I let go of my wife."
He said the agents told the couple that they would either arrest Milena Zapata and allow Alaia to stay with her father, or they would arrest both parents and turn the child over to a state agency.
US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called the incident "harrowing" and condemned the masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who had "brutalized" the family, and the Trump administration for its nationwide mass deportation campaign.
"If this video left you feeling scared, I want you to know, so am I," said Markey. "If you're feeling angry, so am I... What we saw in this video is just another example of the violence and terror being perpetrated all across our country. This is not normal. This is what dictators do."
Zapata told the Globe that he and his wife were from Ecuador and entered the country several years ago. They have a pending asylum case and had authorization to work.
Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), said on social media that Milena Zapata was a “violent criminal illegal alien.”
The Globe reported that "according to court records, Milena Zapata was accused of stabbing a woman with scissors in the hand and throwing a trash can at her during a dispute over a relationship she believed the woman had with her husband. She was charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon."
Zapata told the Globe that his wife had been attending all her court dates as ordered and that the situation had been "blown out of proportion."
“We came here to work, not to cause harm or anything like that,” Zapata said.
DHS accused Zapata of "faking a seizure," saying he refused medical attention after his wife was arrested.
He told the Globe that Alaia has been distraught since her mother was detained; Milena Zapata is reportedly being held at Cumberland County Jail in Maine.
“She misses her mom a lot, she stays very close to her mom,” Zapata said. “She asks about her mom, she says, ‘Mami, mami, mami’ all the time. I don’t know what to tell her... Sincerely, she is traumatized.”
Community members are planning to hold a vigil in Fitchburg on Saturday, and the mayor's office has offered assistance to the family. The city has received more than 5,000 calls about ICE's treatment of the family.
"The violence and cruelty is hard to watch, but impossible for families to endure," said Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) of the video that circulated on social media Friday. "This is a sickening example of Trump and ICE's blatant disregard for humanity as they terrorize our families and communities. It is shameful, cruel, and it must end."
"Mr. President, the ball is in your court right now," Sen. Bernie Sanders implored President Donald Trump. "Show us what a great dealmaker you are."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Friday offered—and Republican leadership rejected—a compromise deal to end the longest federal shutdown in US history, an agreement under which Democrats proposed to vote to reopen the government in exchange for a one-year extension of expiring Affordable Care Act health insurance subsidies.
"It's clear we need to try something different," Schumer (D-NY) asserted on the Senate floor, noting the 14 failed upper chamber votes on the short-term continuing resolution passed by the House of Representatives in September to fund the government through November 21.
“All Republicans have to do is say ‘yes’ to extend current law for one year," he said. "This is a reasonable offer that reopens the government, deals with healthcare affordability, and begins a process of negotiating reforms to the ACA tax credits for the future. Now the ball is in the Republicans’ court. We need Republicans to just say yes."
.@SenSchumer: "Democrats are ready to clear the way to quickly pass a government funding bill that includes health care affordability. Leader Thune just needs to add a clean one-year extension of the ACA tax credits to the CR so that we can immediately address rising health care… pic.twitter.com/HvgLZHhhhb
— CSPAN (@cspan) November 7, 2025
Schumer's proposal involved a “clean” extension of the ACA tax credits that are set to expire at the end of this year, meaning they would exclude new eligibility restrictions that many Republican lawmakers are seeking to impose. Schumer also floated the creation of a bipartisan committee tasked with negotiating a further extension of ACA subsidies.
After consulting with GOP colleagues, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) rejected the Democrats' offer as a "nonstarter." Republicans have repeatedly balked at voting on the ACA subsidies before the shutdown—now in its 38th day—ends.
"The Obamacare extension is the negotiation. That's what we're going to negotiate once the government opens up," Thune said. "We need to vote to open the government—and there is a proposal out there to do that—and then we can have this whole conversation about healthcare."
Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also dismissed Schumer's proposal, writing on social media that "health in$urance companies applaud Schumer’s proposal to extend Obamacare subsidies for one year."
"Another year of insane profits at the expense of consumers and American taxpayers," added Graham, who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the health insurance industry during his congressional career.
The Democrats' new offer came as a legal battle over Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food benefits plays out, as hundreds of thousands of federal employees are working without pay, and hundreds of commercial airline flights have been delayed or canceled.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) joined Democrats in urging his GOP colleagues to accept the new offer.
"We are now in the 38th day of a government shutdown," Sanders said on the Senate floor Friday. "That means that federal employees all over this country who have to feed their families are not getting paychecks. It means that air traffic controllers are forced to work crazy hours, and we worry about the safety of our flights right now. We worry about Capitol Police officers right here in DC who are having a hard time feeding their families."
LIVE: Donald Trump claims to be a dealmaker. The ball is now in his court. Help negotiate a deal which protects the health care of tens of millions of Americans and let us end the shutdown today. https://t.co/f9Gpi7wd8W
— Sen. Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 7, 2025
Sanders continued:
These are hardworking people who are doing important work. They deserve respect. They deserve to be paid. This shutdown must end as quickly as possible.
And on top of the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of workers not getting paid, we now have a president who—for the first time in the history of this country—is willing to allow our kids, low-income, working-class children, to go hungry in order to try to make a political point. A point, by the way, that the American people are seeing through.
Despite appealing a judge's Thursday directive to fully fund November SNAP benefits, the Trump administration told states on Friday that it would release funding for the food aid in compliance with the court order.
"Well, Mr. President, the ball is in your court right now," Sanders added. "Show us what a great dealmaker you are. Help us negotiate a deal which protects the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans and let us end this shutdown today. We can end it in the next few hours."
The government claimed that Cornell had violated civil rights law by allowing students to protest against Israel. Even though the agreement required the school to admit no wrongdoing, it still agreed to pay a $30 million fine.
Cornell University became the latest school to cave to demands from the Trump administration on Friday, inking a deal that would restore $250 million in unpaid research funds stripped by the federal government as part of its crusade against higher education and efforts to punish schools that allowed students to freely express pro-Palestine views.
Following a months-long investigation by the government for allegedly violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Ivy League school agreed to pay a $30 million fine to the government, which claimed that Cornell had violated the law by not sufficiently cracking down on student protests against Israel's genocide in Gaza. The administration accused the school of failing “to protect Jewish students.”
In March, the Department of Education launched investigations into 60 major US universities, with Education Secretary Linda McMahon describing students' peaceful demonstrations against Israel that had swept campuses the previous year as "relentless antisemitic eruptions."
As The Guardian reported earlier this week, the civil rights investigation at Cornell had been spurred by a nonspecific, anonymous complaint that a professor “is supporting Hammas [sic] and their beliefs. He is literally brain washing students to hate and discriminate towards a certain religions [sic]–Jews." The complaint demanded that the professor be "black listed" from teaching.
Following this complaint, the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights announced an investigation into the school for "failing to respond to incidents of harassment."
In a letter to the school community on Friday, Cornell's president, Michael Kotlikoff, said that the resolution made explicit that its agreement to pay out the lofty fine to the Trump administration was "not an admission of wrongdoing" by the university.
In addition to paying the fine, the school also had to set aside another $30 million to invest in "research programs that will directly benefit US farmers through lower costs of production and enhanced efficiency.”
And while Kotlikoff said he would refuse a deal that allowed the government to “dictate our institution’s policies,” the agreement requires the school to comply with several of the Trump administration's ideological goals.
It agreed to restrict its use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and turn over data on the racial makeup of its student body to demonstrate that it is complying with the 2023 Supreme Court decision outlawing affirmative action. It also agreed to train staff using a Justice Department memo ordering colleges to abandon "transgender-friendly” policies.
Cornell also agreed to "conduct annual surveys to evaluate the campus climate for Cornell students, including the climate for students with shared Jewish ancestry." The school specifically agreed to query students about "whether they believe the changes Cornell has made since October of 2023," when Israel launched a two-year genocide in response to Hamas attack, "have benefited the Cornell community."
The Trump administration has notably ordered schools to abide by a wide-ranging definition of "antisemitism" that not only punishes displays of bigotry against Jewish people, but also criticisms of Israel's government and policies.
Cornell also agreed to seek out “experts on laws and regulations regarding sanctions enforcement, anti-money laundering, and prevention of terrorist financing,” suggesting that the school will be expected to discipline and investigate pro-Palestinian organizations on campus, which the administration has baselessly accused of "material support" for terrorism.
Cornell's agreement with the administration comes as students at more than 100 campuses across the country have launched demonstrations against Trump's efforts to coerce schools into signing his “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” in exchange for priority federal funding and other “positive benefits.” Critics have described it as a "loyalty oath" and an "extortion agreement."
Though several schools have declined to sign onto the compact, Cornell is not the first school to bend to the Trump administration's demands to restart the flow of federal funding: Brown University, Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Virginia have all cut similar deals.
Jameel Jaffer, the director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, has argued that there was little basis for Cornell to be fined for civil rights violations.
"If the Trump administration had evidence that Cornell systemically discriminated against Jewish students in violation of Title VI, it wouldn't let the university off the hook for a $30 million investment in research about AI, robotics, and farming," Jaffer said. "But, of course, there's no such evidence. The settlement only confirms what we already knew—that the Trump administration's Title VI allegations were baseless and made in bad faith."
"That doesn't mean there weren't antisemitic incidents on Cornell's campus. There were. But there's just no support for the notion that Cornell or other major American universities were indifferent to antisemitism," he continued. "The problem wasn't that universities were indifferent to antisemitism, but that they allowed trustees, advocacy groups, demagogues, etc. to pressure them into treating as 'antisemitism' all kinds of political expression and advocacy that was entirely legitimate."
A report from the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association, which analyzed discrimination complaints sent to the Civil Rights Office found that "all but one of the 102 antisemitism complaint letters we have analyzed focus on speech critical of Israel; of these, 79% contain allegations of antisemitism that simply describe criticisms of Israel or Zionism with no reference to Jews or Judaism; at least 50% of complaints consist solely of such criticism."
Though the payout was far less than the $200 million settlement Columbia agreed to pay earlier this year, Spencer Beswick, a postdoctoral associate at Cornell's Humanities Scholars Program, wrote on social media that his university was guilty of "capitulation to extortion."