

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.

Randi Spivak, Center for Biological Diversity, (310) 779-4894, rspivak@biologicaldiversity.org
A wide-ranging coalition of Indigenous communities from Southeast Alaska, businesses and conservation organizations filed a lawsuit today targeting the Trump administration's rollback of the federal Roadless Rule that protected the 17 million-acre Tongass National Forest, sometimes called America's Amazon.
Earthjustice and co-counsel Natural Resources Defense Council filed the lawsuit in federal court today on behalf of five Alaska Native tribes, Southeast Alaska small businesses and conservation organizations.
The shortsighted rollback jeopardizes the ancestral homelands of the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian people. Many Indigenous communities continue to rely on the Tongass for wild food harvesting and traditional lifeways. Removing forest protections will have staggering consequences for their culture and food security.
The Tongass is a champion at absorbing greenhouse gas emissions. Cherished as a crown jewel of the national forest system, the forest could serve as a cornerstone for a national climate strategy incorporating wild lands preservation for carbon sequestration. Eliminating the Roadless Rule across the Tongass opens some 9 million acres of irreplaceable forest to timber industry logging proposals. This could usher in a new wave of clearcutting, wiping out majestic, centuries-old trees and devitalizing a key buffer against climate change.
Gutting the Roadless Rule imperils unique wildlife and clean waters and threatens the livelihoods of commercial fishing families and small businesses in tourism and recreation. The Tongass produces some 25% of West Coast salmon and attracts millions of visitors from throughout the world.
Spokespeople from Alaska Native communities, Alaska-based small businesses and conservation groups issued the following statements:
"We are deeply concerned about the protection of the Tongass National Forest, where our ancestors have lived for 10,000 years or more," said Joel Jackson, tribal president of the Organized Village of Kake. "We still walk and travel across this traditional and customary use area, which is vast and surrounds all of our communities to the north, south, east and west. It's important that we protect these lands and waters, as we are interconnected with them. Our way of life depends on it."
"The process used to create the Roadless Rule exemption was flawed, said Lee Wallace, president of the Organized Village of Saxman. "The U.S.D.A ignored its trust responsibilities to tribes, failed to engage in meaningful consultation, ignored widespread opposition to the exemption, and favored the State of Alaska with $2 million in unlawful payments. This lawsuit is necessary to protect Tlingit and Haida peoples' way of life and resources--not just for today but for future generations."
"The need for this litigation is a mark of shame upon the federal government for violating the trust and responsibilities it has to the Indigenous peoples of the Tongass. It is equally a stain upon the state of Alaska, which colluded with the Trump administration to circumvent scientific analysis to achieve a desired political outcome," said Robert Starbard, tribal administrator of the Hoonah Indian Association. "Hoonah Indian Association accepted the USFS invitation to join the Tongass Roadless Rulemaking process as a cooperating agency believing that the federal government would approach the effort consistent with the intent of National Environmental Policy Act and sought inclusion of the special expertise and relationship the tribes possess of the lands occupied since time immemorial. We ultimately withdrew as a cooperating agency when it became clear that our involvement was purely to provide political cover and lend legitimacy to a corrupted process with a preordained outcome. The Roadless Rule decision is fatally flawed and ignores the advice and expertise of the tribal cooperating agencies and omits significant issues and concerns."
"The Tongass Forest is my home. Home to the ancient Tlingit and Haida Indigenous Nations. It is where my ancestry originates, my bloodline is Indigenous to this land, its DNA is my DNA," said Kashudoha Wanda Loescher Culp, a Tlingit activist and Tongass coordinator for the Women's Earth and Climate Action Network. "The air we breathe, the water we depend on, the land we live upon, all pristine. It is a life to cherish. It is a way of living worth fighting for. The repeal of the Roadless Rule will only lead to the destruction of our homelands, and subsequently the destruction of our communities who depend upon the abundance of the forest. This is an attack on our peoples and the climate. The Trump administration's decision to open the Tongass to roads, logging and mining is an underhanded misuse of congressional authority and the battle will go on--we will continue to rise in defense of our homelands."
"The Tongass National Forest is Southeast Alaska's SeaBank, providing annual dividends in fish, wildlife, and recreation as well unmatched ecosystem services that include water regulation, provisioning, habitat and cultural wealth," said Linda Behnken, commercial fisherman and executive director of Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association. "SeaBank's natural capital produces economic outputs worth several billion dollars per year to residents, visitors and society as a whole--and it will generate that output every year, provided we take care of the underlying natural capital of the forest, estuaries and ocean. Southeast Alaska's future depends on safeguarding the natural capital that sustains our economy and cultural identity. It is time for decisionmakers to see the forest for more than the board feet."
"The Boat Company is a small cruise vessel eco-tour operator that provides hundreds of visitors each year with scenic views of southeast Alaska's coastlines, fjords and forests," said Hunter McIntosh, president of The Boat Company. "I cannot overstate the importance of inventoried Roadless areas to Southeast Alaska's tourism and recreation economy. The Roadless Rule ensures these irreplaceable lands will remain protected and continue to draw visitors from throughout the globe. Remoteness, wildlife and scenery form the main visitor attractions in southeast Alaska and bring in over a million visitors annually."
"Southeast Alaska hosts two-thirds of all Alaska visitors, making it the most visited region of the state," said Dan Blanchard, CEO of UnCruise, a small vessel company providing outdoor recreation experiences. "Forest Service lands, particularly inventoried Roadless areas, are critical to drawing these visitors, and generate roughly $245 million annually--over two-thirds of Tongass National Forest visitor spending. We depend on the ability to market and provide unique recreation experiences, and our clients expect to see 'wild' Alaska and prefer intact natural landscapes. Clearcutting and timber road construction would force us to divert our travel routes to avoid seeing or being around clearcuts. This would negatively affect the outdoor recreation economy and Southeast Alaska's reputation as an adventure travel destination."
"As Southeast Alaskans are keenly aware, the public process around the Alaska-specific Roadless Rule, in which the Trump administration exempted the Tongass from the Roadless Rule itself, was flawed from the start," said Meredith Trainor, executive director of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. "The Southeast Alaska Conservation Council has always gone to court to fight to save the places we love, and we are honored to do so today in partnership with Tribal leaders and other partners from the conservation community. We will work to reinstate Roadless Rule protections for our forest in the early days of the incoming Biden administration, even as we challenge the Record of Decision from the dark days of Trump, in court."
"Like so many of this administration's environmental rollbacks and anti-environment policies, Trump's rushed Tongass roadless rulemaking ignored sound science and public input at every step," said Andy Moderow, Alaska director at Alaska Wilderness League. "Old-growth forests play a vital role in helping to slow climate change. The Tongass alone stores hundreds of millions of metric tons of CO2 and sequesters millions more annually. The complete removal of roadless protections on the Tongass will only worsen the climate crisis, not to mention fragment wildlife habitat and destroy salmon runs. We're joining our partners to fight this extreme rollback and preserve some of the most intact expanses of temperate rainforest remaining in the world."
"Alaskans, both statewide and those living in the region that includes the Tongass National Forest, commented in overwhelming numbers against removing or weakening any Roadless Rule protections for the Tongass," said Becky Knight, president of the regional organization Alaska Rainforest Defenders. "They recognize the many causes for protecting the Tongass' ecosystem integrity which is largely dependent on the sanctity of its roadless areas, and which are the reason for this lawsuit."
"Preserving the Tongass is a matter of survival. It is essential to the subsistence culture and food security of Indigenous peoples. As one of the planet's major carbon sinks, it is also essential for mitigating the climate crisis that threatens us all. We hope today's action will bring renewed protections for the Tongass and those who depend on it," said Andrea Feniger, Sierra Club Alaska chapter director.
"The Trump administration's move to allow logging and road building in the wildest parts of the Tongass National Forest is wrong-headed and would have tragic consequences for the species that make it their homes," said Ellen Montgomery, director of public lands campaigns for Environment America. "The Tongass is home to trees older than our country and that old growth provides home to bears, wolves, salmon and hundreds of bird species. To come close to a goal of protecting 30% of our country's lands and waters by 2030, the nearly 17 million acres of the Tongass must be protected--and this effort to open it up for crass commercial gain does just the opposite."
"Stripping roadless protections for a shocking 9 million acres in the Tongass National Forest will pave the way for more old-growth clearcutting, destruction of wildlife habitat, and only add to our climate change and biodiversity loss woes," said Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska program director at Defenders of Wildlife. "We won't back down until the protections of the Roadless Rule are reinstated."
"The Trump administration's removal of roadless protections on the Tongass National Forest is arbitrary and reckless," said Karlin Itchoak, Alaska state director of The Wilderness Society. "Allowing logging and other industrial development in one of the most important old-growth rainforests in the world not only threatens centuries-old trees, but also jeopardizes one of the planet's most productive carbon sequestration strongholds and a critical tool for addressing the climate crisis."
"Trump's reckless plan to clearcut old-growth trees in the Tongass will irreversibly damage our climate, kill wildlife and devastate Southeast Alaska communities," said Randi Spivak, public lands program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "We're in the midst of climate and wildlife extinction crises and the Tongass is a lifeline for our planet. We'll do everything we can to make sure this spectacular forest is protected."
"The Tongass National Forest is not only a climate stronghold for birds and other wildlife, its old-growth trees are the lungs of North America, serving a vital role in natural climate mitigation by absorbing carbon pollution from the atmosphere," said Sarah Greenberger, senior vice president of conservation policy at National Audubon Society. "At a time when a healthy climate must be a priority, destroying old-growth forests that are doing a fair share of the work is outrageous."
"The large roadless areas of the Tongass provide outstanding habitat for a remarkable diversity of wildlife. Stripping protections from this forest to allow for road construction, clear cut logging, and other destructive activities in the Tongass will degrade water quality, accelerate climate change impacts, and threaten local economies that rely on clean water," said Tracy Stone-Manning, associate vice president for public lands at the National Wildlife Federation. "The U.S. Forest Service ignored public input from Indigenous tribes, local communities and tens of thousands of people across the country, and it violated the law. The administration left us no choice but to go to court to protect this remarkable place for future generations."
"This lawsuit is a direct response to the outgoing administration's attempt to open Alaska's Tongass National Forest to a new round of devastating clearcuts in some of the most important remaining old-growth habitat in the forest," said Earthjustice attorney Kate Glover. "The Trump administration ignored tribes and Alaskans throughout this process, and is instead prioritizing illusive timber industry profits over the interests of Alaska Native people who have stewarded the land since time immemorial, small business operators whose livelihoods depend on an intact forest ecosystem, and everyone who benefits from this national forest's unique ability to serve as a natural buffer against climate change."
"We're challenging an outrageous assault on America's environment and all those who benefit from it, now and in future generations," said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The Roadless Rule is a landmark achievement in conserving our natural heritage, our climate, and our public resources. It put an end to taxpayer-subsidized clearcutting of our last best wildlands. We're not going to let Trump get away with this illegal effort to strip America's great temperate rainforest of these vital protections."
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252“There’s very little in our product portfolio that has benefited from tariffs,” said the CEO of one North Carolina-based steel product company.
US President Donald Trump pledged that the manufacturing industry would come "roaring back into our country" after what he called "Liberation Day" last April, which was marked by the announcement of sweeping tariffs on imported goods—a policy that has shifted constantly in the past 10 months as Trump has changed rates, canceled tariffs, and threatened new ones.
But after promising to turn around economic trends that have developed over decades—the shipping of jobs overseas, automation, and the obliteration of towns and cities that had once been manufacturing centers—Trump's trade policy appears to have put any progress achieved in the sector in recent years "in reverse," as the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
Federal data shows that in each of the eight months that followed Trump's Liberation Day tariffs, manufacturing companies reduced their workforce, with a total of 72,000 jobs in the industry lost since April 2025.
The Census Bureau also estimates that construction spending in the manufacturing industry contracted in the first nine months of Trump's second term, after surging during the Biden administration due to investments in renewable energy and semiconductor chips.
"But the tariffs haven’t helped," said Hanson.
Trump has insisted that his tariff policy would force companies to manufacture goods domestically to avoid paying more for foreign materials—just as he has claimed consumers would see lower prices.
But numerous analyses have shown American families are paying more, not less, for essentials like groceries as companies have passed on their higher operating costs to consumers, and federal data has made clear that companies are also avoiding investing in labor since Trump introduced the tariffs—while the trade war the president has kicked off hasn't changed the realities faced by many manufacturing sectors.
"While tariffs do reduce import competition, they can also increase the cost of key components for domestic manufacturers," wrote Emma Ockerman at Yahoo Finance. "Take US electric vehicle plants that rely on batteries made with rare earth elements imported from overseas, for instance. Some parts simply aren’t made in the United States."
At the National Interest, Ryan Mulholland of the Center for American Progress wrote that Trump's tariffs have created "three overlapping challenges" for US businesses.
"The imported components and materials needed to produce goods domestically now cost more—in some cases, a lot more," wrote Mulholland. "Foreign buyers are now looking elsewhere, often to protest Trump’s global belligerence, costing US firms market share abroad that will be difficult to win back. And if bad policy wasn’t enough, US manufacturers must also contend with the Trump administration’s unpredictability, which has made long-term investment decisions nearly impossible. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that small business bankruptcies have surged to their highest level in years."
Trump's unpredictable threats of new tariffs and his retreats on the policy, as with European countries in recent weeks when he said he would impose new levies on countries that didn't support his push to take control of Greenland, have also led to "a lost year for investment" for many firms, along with the possibility that the US Supreme Court could soon rule against the president's tariffs.
“If Trump just picked a number—whatever it was, 10% or 15% to 20%—we might all say it’s bad, I’d say it’s bad, I think most economists would say it’s bad,” Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told Yahoo Finance. “But the worst thing is there’s no certainty about it.”
Constantly changing tariff rates make it "very difficult for businesses... to plan," said Baker. “I think you’ve had a lot of businesses curtail investment plans because they just don’t know whether the plans will make sense.”
While US manufacturers have struggled to compete globally, China and other countries have continued exporting their goods.
“There’s very little in our product portfolio that has benefited from tariffs,” H.O. Woltz III, chief executive of North Carolina-based Insteel Industries, told the Wall Street Journal.
US Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) noted Monday that the data on manufacturing job losses comes a week after Vice President JD Vance visited his home state to tout "record job growth."
"Here’s the reality: Families face higher costs, tariffs are costing manufacturing jobs, and over $200 million in approved federal infrastructure and manufacturing investments here were cut by this administration," said Kaptur. "Ohio deserves better."
"These types of abusive subpoenas are designed to intimidate and sow fear of government retaliation," said a lawyer for the ACLU.
The Department of Homeland Security is using a little-known legal power to surveil and intimidate critics of the Trump administration, according to a harrowing report published Tuesday by the Washington Post.
Experts told the Post that DHS annually issues thousands of "administrative subpoenas," which allow federal agencies to request massive amounts of personal information from third parties—like technology companies and banks—without an order from a judge or a grand jury, and completely unbeknownst to the people whose privacy is being invaded.
As the Post found, even sending a politely critical email to a government official can be enough to have someone's entire life brought under the microscope.
That is what Jon, a 67-year-old retiree living in Philadelphia, who has been a US citizen for nearly three decades, found out after he sent a short email urging a DHS prosecutor, Joseph Dernbach, to reconsider an attempt to deport an Afghan asylum seeker who faced the threat of being killed by the Taliban if he was forced to return to his home country.
In the email, Jon warned Dernbach not to "play Russian roulette" with the man's life and implored him to “apply principles of common sense and decency.”
Just five hours after he sent the email, Jon received a message from Google stating that DHS had used a "subpoena" to request information about his account. Google gave him seven days to respond to the subpoena, but did not provide him with a copy of the document; instead, it told him to request one from DHS.
From there, he was sent on “a maddening, hourslong circuit of answering machines, dead numbers, and uninterested attendants,” which yielded no answers.
Within weeks of sending the email, a pair of DHS agents visited Jon's home and asked him to explain it. They told Jon that his email had not clearly broken any law, but that the DHS prosecutor may have felt threatened by his use of the phrase "Russian Roulette" and his mention of the Taliban.
Days later, after weeks of hitting a wall, Google finally sent Jon a copy of the subpoena only after the company was contacted by a Post reporter. It was then that Jon learned the breadth of what DHS had requested:
Among their demands, which they wanted dating back to Sept. 1: the day, time, and duration of all his online sessions; every associated IP and physical address; a list of each service he used; any alternate usernames and email addresses; the date he opened his account; his credit card, driver’s license, and Social Security numbers.
Google also informed him that it had not yet responded to the subpoena, though the company did not explain why.
But this is unusual. Google and other companies, including Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon, told the Post that they nearly always comply with administrative subpoenas unless they are barred from doing so.
With the ACLU's help, Jon filed a motion in court on Monday to challenge the subpoena issued to Google.
"In a democracy, contacting your government about things you feel strongly about is a fundamental right," Jon said. "I exercised that right to urge my government to take this man's life seriously. For that, I am being investigated, intimidated, and targeted. I hope that by standing up for my rights and sharing my story, others will know what to do when these abusive subpoenas and investigations come knocking on their door."
As the Trump administration uses DHS and other agencies to compile secret watchlists and databases of protesters for surveillance, targets people for deportation based solely on political speech, and asserts its authority to raid residences without a judicial warrant, administrative subpoenas appear to be another weapon in its arsenal against free speech and civil rights.
According to “transparency reports” reviewed by the Post, Google and Meta both received a record number of administrative subpoenas during the first six months of the second Trump administration. In several instances, they have been used to target protesters or other dissidents for First Amendment-protected activity:
In March, Homeland Security issued two administrative subpoenas to Columbia University for information on a student it sought to deport after she took part in pro-Palestinian protests. In July, the agency demanded broad employment records from Harvard University with what the school’s attorneys described as “unprecedented administrative subpoenas.” In September, Homeland Security used one to try to identify Instagram users who posted about [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] raids in Los Angeles. Last month, the agency used another to demand detailed personal information about some 7,000 workers in a Minnesota health system whose staff had protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s intrusion into one of its hospitals.
“These types of abusive subpoenas are designed to intimidate and sow fear of government retaliation," said Stephen A. Loney, a senior supervising attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "If you can’t criticize a government official without the worry of having your private records gathered and agents knocking on your door, then your First Amendment rights start to feel less guaranteed. They want to bully companies into handing over our data and to chill users’ speech. This is unacceptable in a democratic society.”
"You don’t see evidence of gang association," said one legal expert. "It just feels like a dirtying up of the defendant."
After a US Border Patrol Agent shot two Venezuelan immigrants in Portland, Oregon in January, the Department of Homeland Security claimed that the two victims were "vicious Tren de Aragua gang members" who "weaponized their vehicle" against federal agents, who had no choice but to open fire in self-defense.
However, court records obtained by the Guardian reveal that a Department of Justice prosecutor subsequently told a judge the government was "not suggesting" that one of the victims, Luis Niño-Moncada, was a gang member.
The Guardian also obtained an FBI affidavit contradicting DHS claims about the second victim, Yorlenys Zambrano-Contreras, being "involved" in a shooting in Portland last year, when in reality she was a "reported victim of sexual assault and robbery."
Attorneys representing Niño-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras, who both survived the shooting and were subsequently hospitalized, told the Guardian that neither of them have any prior criminal convictions.
Legal experts who spoke with the Guardian about the shooting said it appeared that DHS was waging a "smear campaign" against the victims.
Sergio Perez, a civil rights lawyer and former US prosecutor, noted in an interview that prosecutors filed criminal charges against Niño-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras just two days after they were shot, even before it had obtained crucial video evidence of the incident.
"This government needs to go back to the practice of slow and thorough investigations," he told the Guardian, "rather than what we consistently see in immigration enforcement activities—which is a rush to smear individuals."
Carley Palmer, a former federal prosecutor, told the Guardian that the court records obtained by the paper don't show DOJ presenting any of the usual evidence that prosecutors use to establish defendants' alleged gang membership.
"What’s interesting about the filings is that you don’t see evidence of gang association," said Palmer. "It just feels like a dirtying up of the defendant."
DHS in recent months has made a number of claims about people who have been shot or killed by federal immigration officers that have not held up to scrutiny.
Most recently, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that slain Minneapolis intensive care nurse Alex Pretti was a "domestic terrorist" intent on inflicting "maximum damage" on federal agents, when video clearly showed that Pretti was swarmed by multiple federal agents and was disarmed before two agents opened fire and killed him.
Noem also openly lied about the circumstances and actions that resulted in the shooting death of Renee Nicole Good by a federal agent weeks earlier.
In November, federal prosecutors abruptly dropped charges against Marimar Martinez, a woman who was shot multiple times by a US Border Patrol agent in October in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood.
In the indictment filed against Martinez, prosecutors said that the Border Patrol agent who shot her had been acting in self-defense, and that he had only opened fire after Martinez’s car collided with his vehicle.
However, uncovered text messages showed the Border Patrol agent apparently bragging about shooting Martinez, as he boasted that he “fired five rounds and she had seven holes” in a message sent to fellow agents.
An attorney representing Martinez also claimed that he had seen body camera footage that directly undermined DHS claims about how the shooting unfolded.
No explanation was provided for why charges against Martinez were dropped.