

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.

Environmental groups filed a lawsuit in federal court today challenging the Trump administration's decision to allow oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Bureau of Land Management's plan for drilling in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge would cause irreparable damage to one the world's most important wild places and takes America in exactly the wrong direction on combating climate change, the suit says.
The lawsuit, filed by the National Audubon Society, Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Friends of the Earth, represented by the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice and NRDC, is one of several legal actions launched in response to the oil and gas drilling plan. The Gwich'in Steering Committee, a voice for indigenous traditional hunting communities, also filed suit to challenge the oil and gas development plan. Gwich'in people revere the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain as a sacred place because it serves as calving grounds for the Porcupine Caribou Herd, animals that are essential for food and cultural tradition in Gwich'in villages.
The Trump administration's plan to sacrifice this cherished place for oil and gas development comes at a time of rising concerns about the climate crisis, and as energy markets contend with an oil glut due to a global pandemic. The administration selected an alternative that maximizes the area to be handed over to the fossil fuel industry. Its flawed analysis ignores the irreversible harm oil and gas development will bring to one of the world's most significant wildlife habitats, dealing a blow to species such as polar bears, caribou, and millions of migratory birds. The final Environmental Impact Statement even acknowledged that some bird species may go extinct.
The Bureau of Land Management also downplayed how development would damage the tundra and permafrost that support the Arctic ecosystem and the consequences on the people who recreate, hunt, and otherwise use the Arctic Refuge. And although temperatures are rising in the Arctic at twice the rate of the rest of the planet, federal approval for oil and gas drilling also under-reported leasing's climate change implications.
The lawsuit calls for the court to block the leasing program because its approval ignored federal law, violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The program maximizes oil development at the expense of all other protected values in the Refuge, and ignores important requirements designed to avoid such damage.
Co-plaintiffs and attorneys engaged in this lawsuit issued the following statements:
"Birds can't vote and they can't file a lawsuit--but we can. This is an all-hands-on- deck moment to defend the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and protect America's bird nursery from drilling," said David Yarnold (@david_yarnold), president and CEO of the National Audubon Society. "On the darkest days I like to think about the perseverance of the Tundra Swan that travel in family groups from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge over three thousand miles to spend their winter with us on the Potomac and the Chesapeake. They never give up and neither do we--if we don't look out for them and the 200 other bird species that depend on the Refuge--who will?"
"Developing Alaska's last wild places would be a death sentence for polar bears and other threatened Arctic species. The oil industry just doesn't belong in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," said Kristen Monsell, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "It's obscene that the Trump administration and its industrial allies targeted this special place, and we need the courts to stop them. Preventing climate chaos requires protecting our final frontiers."
"Earthjustice has been defending the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from fossil fuel development since the 1980s. Today we're taking action to stop an administration that's run roughshod over laws designed to protect this irreplaceable landscape," said Earthjustice attorney Erik Grafe. "The Trump administration's aggressive oil-drilling scheme ignores the science of climate change. It violates the rights of Indigenous people who hold the Refuge to be sacred, robs the millions of Americans of who cherish the unspoiled beauty of this public-lands treasure, and threatens to harm iconic wildlife like endangered polar bears whose habitat is dwindling due to vanishing sea ice. Not only is the plan to ruin this place for the profit of a dead-end industry completely heartless and short-sighted, it is also unlawful - and our court battle to defend the Refuge begins today."
"Trump and his grifter administration are determined to hand our most precious wild spaces over to corporate polluters," said Marcie Keever, legal director for Friends of the Earth. "Opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to destructive drilling, mining and extraction will irreversibly harm the land and surrounding communities and exacerbate the climate crisis. The Trump Administration is opening the doors of this cherished place to the oil and gas industry, and we need the courts to intervene. Protecting our climate means we must keep fossil fuels in the ground."
"This plan to expose the Arctic Refuge to the hazard and harm of drilling violates so many laws, it's hard to even list them all," said Garett Rose, attorney for the Alaska project at NRDC (the Natural Resources Defense Council). "Here's the administration, ready to violate an area sacred to the Gwich'in and other Indigenous people. It's coming for baby polar bears! It's coming for porcupine caribou, peregrine falcons, and will run roughshod over sensitive tundra, wetlands and foothills. We are simply not going to let polluters win this fight."
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.
800-584-6460The president's decision means the US "will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil," said one observer.
President Donald Trump said Sunday that his administration would let a Russia-owned tanker carrying an estimated 730,000 barrels of oil to reach Cuba, loosening the illegal fuel blockade that has intensified the island's already-grave humanitarian crisis.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said that "if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem," backing off his previous threat to tariff any nation that supplied the besieged island with fuel. Cuba has not received any oil imports since January 9, sparking nationwide blackouts and food shortages and leaving hospitals without critical supplies—with deadly consequences for patients.
Trump insisted that the oil on the Russian tanker—which experts say is enough to buy Cuba at least several weeks of energy—is "not going to have an impact," declaring, "Cuba is finished."
"They have a bad regime, and they have very bad and corrupt leadership," added Trump, who presides over what analysts have deemed the most corrupt administration in US history. "Whether or not they get a boat of oil is not going to matter."
Reporter: There's a report that the US is going to let a Russian oil tanker go to Cuba?
Trump: If a country wants to send some oil into Cuba, I have no problem with that.
Reporter: Do you worry that that helps Putin?
Trump: It doesn’t help him. He loses one boatload of oil.… pic.twitter.com/8Vh6gHwaxs
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 30, 2026
Trump's comments came after The New York Times reported that, "barring orders instructing it otherwise," the US Coast Guard would not intercept the Russian tanker as it approached Cuba.
The Russian vessel, known as the Anatoly Kolodkin, is expected to reach the island by Monday night, providing some reprieve to a nation whose economy has been strangled by unlawful US economic warfare for decades. In recent days, an international convoy of activists has delivered tons of food, medicine, and other aid to the island, but the shipments are a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.
Michael Gallant, a member of the Progressive International Secretariat, welcomed news that the US is allowing the Russian tanker to reach Cuba as "very good news"—but said Trump's decision is hardly deserving of praise.
Very good news. “The US will allow,” of course, means “will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil” https://t.co/YF2RRIXC2S
— Michael Galant (@michael_galant) March 29, 2026
Trump imposed the fuel blockade in January, absurdly characterizing Cuba as an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to US national security.
Earlier this month, Trump threatened to "take" Cuba by force, calling it a "very weakened nation." Trump's remarks prompted Cuba's president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, to vow "impregnable resistance" to any US attempt to seize the island. The Trump administration is reportedly seeking Díaz-Canel's removal as a necessary condition in talks with the Cuban government.
Trump's threats led Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) to introduce legislation last week that would prohibit the administration from using federal funds for any attack on Cuba without congressional authorization.
"Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba," Jayapal said in a statement. "These military attacks put our troops in danger, endanger innocent civilians, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and are not what the American people want."
"Trump promised to end forever wars—he lied," Jayapal added. "Congress alone has the power to declare war, something Trump clearly does not respect. He has no plan to improve conditions for the Cuban people or promote democracy, and we must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."