

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.

Kyle Tisdel, Western Environmental Law Center, 575-770-7501, tisdel@westernlaw.org
Shiloh Hernandez, Western Environmental Law Center, 406-204-4861, hernandez@westernlaw.org
Daniel Timmons, WildEarth Guardians, (505) 570-7014, dtimmons@wildearthguardians.org
Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians, 303-437-7663, jnichols@wildearthguardians.org
Barbara Gottlieb, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 301-806-6826, bgottlieb@psr.org
Late last Friday, a federal court ruled that the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (the Bureau) failed to disclose the climate impacts of selling more than 300,000 acres--or 475 square miles--of public lands for fracking and oil and gas extraction in Wyoming.
While centered on Wyoming, the ruling implicates federal oil and gas leasing on public lands across the country. The ruling also comes as President-Elect Joe Biden has expressly committed to banning new federal oil and gas leasing.
"The law is clear, and our cases have cemented that the federal government must study the climate impacts of the drilling and fracking it allows on public lands," said Kyle Tisdel, attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. "But it is time for the federal government to not just improve its analysis, but begin to take action and make decisions that reflect the urgency of the climate crisis. We remain ready to ensure accountability and fight for our children's right to a livable planet."
"Fracking and oil and gas extraction on public lands is a major health, climate, and environmental crisis," said Barbara Gottlieb, director of environment and health for Physicians for Social Responsibility. "This latest reproach of the Trump administration is an opportunity for President-Elect Biden to put U.S. public lands to work for people and the planet."
Physicians for Social Responsibility, WildEarth Guardians, and the Western Environmental Law Center initially won the lawsuit in March 2019. Originally filed in 2016, the suit challenged federal oil and gas leasing on over 460,000 acres of public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The case centered on Wyoming, where 303,995 acres were leased.
Leasing affords private companies the right to drill, frack, and produce oil and gas, the burning of which is a leading contributor to the climate crisis.
The 2019 ruling was hailed as a landmark victory for the climate. In response, the Bureau refused to comply with the court order, attempting to paper over its violations with a blizzard of meaningless numbers in a rushed bid to re-approve the same decision deemed illegal by the court.
The groups subsequently brought the Bureau back to court. On November 13, Judge Contreras agreed the agency still failed to account for the climate consequences of selling public lands for oil and gas extraction. The judge found the Bureau's climate assessment was "a sloppy and rushed process" and "[fell] short of what [the] NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] requires and what the Court ordered."
The judge also ordered an injunction on drilling the oil and gas leases at issue, effectively banning new development on over 300,000 acres of Wyoming public lands involved in the case.
The ruling is significant because it found, among other things, the Bureau of Land Management failed to properly account for oil and gas leasing occurring beyond Wyoming, including in neighboring states. The judge faulted the agency for "[f]ailing to analyze the lease sales in the region, and other reasonably foreseeable lease sales in the country."
"Once again, the courts are refusing to accept the Bureau of Land Management's blatant climate denial," said Daniel Timmons, staff attorney for WildEarth Guardians. "The law is clear, the federal government can't turn its back on the fact that leasing more public lands for oil and gas is a recipe for more climate destruction."
The latest ruling is another rebuke of the Trump administration's "energy dominance" agenda, which prioritized fossil fuel extraction on public lands and waters in the U.S. In defiance of climate science, Trump's Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management have fast-tracked leasing, selling millions of acres to oil and gas companies, mostly in the American West.
"Once again, the fossil fuel industry and their cronies in the Trump administration have lost and the climate has won," said Jeremy Nichols, Climate and Energy Program director for WildEarth Guardians. "This latest court win confirms there is no scientific or legal basis to keep selling public lands for fracking."
President-Elect Biden has explicitly committed to ending new oil and gas leasing as part of his climate and clean energy agenda. On day one of his administration, Biden has pledged to ban new oil and gas leasing on public lands and waters across the U.S.
A 2018 U.S. Geological Survey report found that oil and gas produced from public lands and waters contributes to 10 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. A 2018 report by the Stockholm Environmental Institute also confirmed that ending public lands fossil fuel production could significantly reduce nationwide greenhouse gas emissions.
Ending the sale of public lands for fracking would also yield enormous health benefits. Besides impacting the climate, the fracking science compendium released in June 2019 by Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of New York confirmed extensive health risks associated with oil and gas extraction, including cancer, asthma, pre-term birth, and more.
WildEarth Guardians, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Western Environmental Law Center have been at the forefront of defending the climate from rampant oil and gas leasing on public lands in the American West. In addition to the current case, the groups filed suit in January 2020 over nearly two million acres of oil and gas leasing under the Trump administration. This fall, the Bureau acknowledged the failures of its decisions and sought a voluntary remand for nearly all of those leased lands, which was granted by the court. The few remaining leases in that case remain pending.
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) 485-2471"Noem's decision to rip up the union contract for 47,000 TSA officers is an illegal act of retaliatory union busting that should cause concern for every person who steps foot in an airport," said the AFGE president.
On the heels of a major win for federal workers in the US House of Representatives, the Transportation Security Administration on Friday revived Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's effort to tear up TSA employees' collective bargaining agreement.
House Democrats and 20 Republicans voted Thursday to restore the rights of 1 million federal workers, which President Donald Trump had moved to terminate by claiming their work is primarily focused on national security, so they shouldn't have union representation. Noem made a similar argument about collective bargaining with the TSA workforce.
A federal judge blocked Noem's first effort in June, in response to a lawsuit from the American Federation of Government Employees, but TSA moved to kill the agreement again on Friday, citing a September memo from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) chief. AFGE pledged to fight the latest attack on the 47,000 transportation security officers it represents.
"Secretary Noem's decision to revoke our union contract is a slap in the face to the dedicated workforce that shows up each and every day for the flying public," declared AFGE Council 100 president Hydrick Thomas. "TSA officers take pride in the work we perform on behalf of the American people—many of us joined the agency following the September 11 attacks because we wanted to serve our country and make sure that the skies are safe for air travel."
"Prior to having a union contract, many employees endured hostile work environments, and workers felt like they didn't have a voice on the job, which led to severe attrition rates and longer wait times for the traveling public. Since having a contract, we've seen a more stable workforce, and there has never been another aviation-related attack on our country," he noted. "AFGE TSA Council 100 is going to keep fighting for our union rights so we can continue providing the very best services to the American people."
As the Associated Press reported:
The agency said it plans to rescind the current seven-year contract in January and replace it with a new "security-focused framework." The agreement, reached last May, was supposed to expire in 2031.
Adam Stahl, acting TSA deputy administrator, said in a statement that airport screeners "need to be focused on their mission of keeping travelers safe."
"Under the leadership of Secretary Noem, we are ridding the agency of wasteful and time-consuming activities that distracted our officers from their crucial work," Stahl said.
AFGE national president Everett Kelley highlighted Friday that "merely 30 days ago, Secretary Noem celebrated TSA officers for their dedication during the longest government shutdown in history. Today, she's announcing a lump of coal right on time for the holidays: that she’s stripping those same dedicated officers of their union rights."
"Secretary Noem's decision to rip up the union contract for 47,000 TSA officers is an illegal act of retaliatory union busting that should cause concern for every person who steps foot in an airport," he added. "AFGE will continue to challenge these illegal attacks on our members' right to belong to a union, and we urge the Senate to pass the Protect America's Workforce Act immediately."
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) president Liz Shuler similarly slammed the new DHS move as "an outrageous attack on workers' rights that puts all of us at risk" and accused the department of trying to union bust again "in explicit retaliation for members standing up for their rights."
"It's no coincidence that this escalation, pulled from the pages of Project 2025, is coming just one day after a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives voted to overturn Trump's executive order ripping away union rights from federal workers," she also said, calling on senators to pass the bill "to ensure that every federal worker, including TSA officers, are able to have a voice on the job."
The DHS union busting came after not only the House vote but also a lawsuit filed Thursday by Benjamin Rodgers, a TSA officer at Denver International Airport, over the federal government withholding pay during the 43-day shutdown, during which he and his co-workers across the country were expected to keep reporting for duty.
"Some of them actually had to quit and find a separate job so they could hold up their household with kids and stuff," Rodgers told HuffPost. "I want to help out other people as much as I can, to get their fair wages they deserve."
"We will continue to fight alongside all immigrants and their families who are unjustly targeted by this callous administration," vowed the legal director at Justice Action Center.
As a "chilling" report in the New York Times revealed that the Transportation Security Administration is providing the names of all airline passengers to immigration officials, President Donald Trump's administration on Friday also openly continued its war on immigrants by announcing an end to allowing relatives of citizens or lawful permanent residents to enter the United States while awaiting green cards.
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a statement that it is terminating all categorical family reunification parole programs for immigrants from Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Honduras, and "returning parole to a case-by-case basis." An official notice has been prepared for publication in the Federal Register on Monday, and the policy is set to take effect on January 14.
Responding in a statement late Friday, Anwen Hughes, senior director of legal strategy for the refugee programs at Human Rights First, said that "this outrageous decision to pull the rug out from under the thousands of people who came to the US lawfully to reunite with their families is shocking."
"Yet again, this administration is taking extraordinary measures to delegalize as many people as possible, even when they have done everything the US government has asked of them," she continued. "The government did this in March when they announced their intent to take away lawful status from hundreds of thousands of humanitarian parole beneficiaries; they are doing it now with more than 10,000 people who came lawfully to reunite with their families; they are taking their attacks on birthright citizenship to the Supreme Court; and they are escalating their threats to delegalize untold numbers of others without notice."
"This outrageous decision to pull the rug out from under the thousands of people who came to the US lawfully to reunite with their families is shocking."
Lawyers behind a class action lawsuit against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and other key administration leaders over the March policy—Svitlana Doe v. Noem—plan to also challenge the new move.
"Those who entered under the family reunification program should contact their immigration attorney immediately to better understand their options, as those options may change on December 15," warned Esther Sung, legal director at Justice Action Center, which represented plaintiffs in the earlier case.
"The legal team in Svitlana Doe v. Noem will also alert the court as soon as possible to ensure that our clients and class members are not unlawfully harmed by this move," Sung said. "Today's news is devastating for families across the country, but we will continue to fight alongside all immigrants and their families who are unjustly targeted by this callous administration."
Ending family reunification parole won't make us safer, it will only tear families apart. Our immigration policies should be fair and humane. This is just cruel.www.uscis.gov/newsroom/ale...
[image or embed]
— Rep. Linda Sánchez (@replindasanchez.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 2:36 PM
Meanwhile, as the Times reported Friday, in March, TSA began sending the names of all air travelers to another DHS agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which "can then match the list against its own database of people subject to deportation and send agents to the airport to detain those people."
"It's unclear how many arrests have been made as a result of the collaboration," the newspaper detailed. "But documents obtained by the New York Times show that it led to the arrest of Any Lucía López Belloza, the college student picked up at Boston Logan Airport on November 20 and deported to Honduras two days later. A former ICE official said 75% of instances in that official's region where names were flagged by the program yielded arrests."
In López Belloza's case, she tried to board her plane, but her ticket didn't work. The 19-year-old—who said she didn't know about a previous deportation order—was sent to customer service, where she was met by agents with Customs and Border Protection (CBP), another DHS agency playing a key role in Trump's sweeping and violent crackdown on immigrants.
Like the new attack on family reunification, the Times reporting sparked a wave of condemnation. David Kaye, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said on social media, "Make sure people you know who need this information have this information."
Jonathan Cohn, political director for the group Progressive Mass, declared that "the Trump administration wants to make flying unsafe: unsafe because of surveillance, unsafe because of understaffed air traffic controllers, and unsafe because of gutted consumer protections."
Eva Galperin, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's director of cybersecurity, pointed to the constitutional protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, saying, "I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like the Fourth Amendment has something to say about this."
Immigration Agents Are Using Air Passenger Data for Deportation EffortThe Transportation Security Administration is providing passenger lists to ICE to identify and detain travelers subject to deportation orders.www.nytimes.com/2025/12/12/u... obvi lawlessly…Prosecute all of them…
[image or embed]
— Sarah Szalavitz💡 (@dearsarah.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 4:14 PM
Amid protests over Trump's broader deportation push and the president's plunging approval rating on immigration, unnamed DHS sources confirmed Friday that CBP teams "under Commander Gregory Bovino will change tactics," according to NewsNation. "Instead of sweeping raids like those that have taken place at locations including Home Depot, agents will now be narrowing their focus to specific targets, such as illegal immigrants convicted of heinous crimes."
NewNation's reporting came just days after DHS published a database on ICE arrestees that led Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, to conclude that the department "is implicitly admitting that less than 5% of the people it arrests are people they believe are 'the worst of the worst.'"
"Regulating AI is winning issue for Democrats, but their own party leaders are too complicit with Silicon Valley to use it," said one observer.
Polls show that a majority of US voters—and especially Democrats—want more robust guardrails on artificial intelligence, but Democratic governors' silence on President Donald Trump's directive banning states from regulating AI has some observers asking if lobbying by the powerful industry is to blame.
Sludge's David Moore and Donald Shaw reported Friday that tech titans including OpenAI and Meta last week sent a small army of lobbyists to meet with attendees of the Democratic Governors Association’s annual meeting, held this year at the swanky Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix.
According to the report, lobbyists and governors—some of whom "are teasing White House bids in 2028 or rumored to be in the mix"—gathered for a closed-door meeting. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore were among those who reportedly met with the lobbyists.
Trump signed an executive order trying to prevent states from regulating AI and following through on the safety laws they enacted, but there was little public pushback from Democratic governors.AI lobbyists descended on the DGA winter meeting last weekend in Phoenix, per a list we obtained:
[image or embed]
— David Moore (@davidrussellmoore.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 11:15 AM
The meeting preceded Trump's Thursday signing of an executive order aimed at limiting states' ability to regulate rapidly evolving AI technology. The order directs the US Department of Justice to establish an AI Litigation Task Force empowered to sue states that enact “onerous and excessive" AI regulation. The edict also threatens to withhold federal funding from states that implement AI regulations that the Trump administration finds objectionable.
Democratic governors have been relatively muted on the order, especially given the overwhelming support for regulation of AI—which many experts say poses threats to humanity that may equal or outweigh its benefits—across the political spectrum.
As Moore and Shaw wrote:
While Democratic governors were silent, their Republican counterparts have been loudly arguing for months against the federal government preempting state AI policies. In June, 17 Republican governors sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune [R-SD] and House Speaker Mike Johnson [R-La.] warning them against preempting their states’ protections on AI use. Over the past couple months, a trio of Republican governors—Spencer Cox (Utah), Ron DeSantis (Fla.), and Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Ark.)—continued to make known their opposition to the Trump administration’s executive order.
Newsom, who many observers believe is eyeing a 2028 White House run, especially disappointed proponents of AI safeguards last year when he vetoed what would have been the nation's strongest AI safety regulations.
It's not just Democratic governors—congressional Democrats have increasingly partnered with an industry expected to soon be worth trillions of dollars. Some Democrats, like Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, are personally invested in AI stocks. The AI industry also made record contributions to political campaigns during the 2024 cycle.
Other Democrats, including some who may have their sights set on higher office—notably Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York—advocate stronger guardrails on AI development.
The public is worried about AI. Regulating AI is winning issue for Democrats but their own party leaders are too complicit with Silicon Valley to use it. www.thenation.com/article/poli...
[image or embed]
— Jeet Heer (@jeetheer.bsky.social) December 12, 2025 at 7:24 AM
"Voters want the party to get tough on the industry. But Democratic leaders are following the money instead," Jeet Heer, national affairs correspondent for The Nation, wrote Friday.
Citing voters' desire for stronger regulation, Heer argued that "Democrats have a tremendous opportunity to use the AI backlash for wedge politics," adding that "it's a way to win back working-class voters who are already disillusioned with the GOP and Trump."