

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) 623-5252They put me through a sham immigration process while guaranteeing the outcome in advance," Mahmoud Khalil said.
An immigration court decision that could hasten the deportation of Palestinian rights activist Mahmoud Khalil was marked by irregularities, including unusual speed and the recusals of several judges, The New York Times reported Friday.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which is housed in the Department of Justice (DOJ) but is legally enjoined to make independent decisions, ruled on April 9 that Khalil could be deported from the US. However, documents obtained by the Times show that the case was fast-tracked in a manner that experts say is unusual.
"This is the due process the administration is offering me, corrupt and unprecedented," Khalil posted on social media Friday in response to the Times' reporting.
Khalil, a student leader of Columbia University protests against the Gaza genocide, was an early target of the Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech when he was abducted by Department of Homeland Security agents while returning to his New York home in March 2025. Despite being a permanent resident married to a US citizen, Khalil was detained in Louisiana for over three months, where he missed the birth of his son.
“In all my decades as an immigration lawyer, I have never seen such a baseless and politically motivated decision."
Despite the BIA's ruling, Khalil cannot be deported while his separate habeas corpus case proceeds through federal courts. However, the Times' reporting raises questions about how fairly he is being treated by the Trump administration and how quickly he could face removal if the federal case falls through.
"This story proves that the Trump administration's treatment of my case has always been corrupt and retaliatory. They put me through a sham immigration process while guaranteeing the outcome in advance," Khalil wrote.
According to the Times:
The case was considered high priority even before the board officially received it. A note from an internal case-tracking file from June said that, even though Mr. Khalil had been released several days earlier, the case was to be handled as if he were still in detention, which would speed it along.
"Please process as quickly as possible,” said another note, from October. Another document shows that the court’s chair—its highest ranking member—oversaw the case from early on.
The decision was made nine days after all the paperwork was submitted, a timeline that Biden BIA appointee Homero López called "unprecedented," as the board often takes years to decide similar cases.
“It’s an insane turnaround, particularly for such a high-profile case on a novel legal issue,” López, who was fired under President Donald Trump, told the Times.
At the same time, people familiar with the situation told the Times that at least three judges had recused themselves from the case, one before it was decided and the others once it became clear it would be published, meaning it would be considered precedent setting.
Former board judge Andrea Sáenz, also fired by Trump, told the Times that judges often recuse themselves because they have somehow been involved with the case before it is appealed.
“How many people touched this case when the immigration judge was handling it the first time?” Sáenz asked.
Former DOJ official David McConnell, who has experience with the immigration appeals process, said that both the quick processing and the recusals were "very unusual." However, he added this did not mean the board necessarily did anything wrong.
However, the BIA's decision was heavily criticized by Khalil's legal team in April, as it upholds Secretary of State Marco Rubio's determination that Khalil could be deported because his activism posed a threat to US foreign policy, which a federal judge in New Jersey said was "likely" unconstitutional and could not be the basis for his detention or deportation. It also justified removal on the grounds that Khalil omitted certain details on green card paperwork, but the government only added those charges after Rubio's foreign policy gambit was challenged.
“In all my decades as an immigration lawyer, I have never seen such a baseless and politically motivated decision. The BIA's decision has absolutely no support in the record, violates a federal court order, and we’ll be fighting it until the end,” Khalil's lead lawyer Marc Van Der Hout said in a statement when the decision was first issued. “Federal courts have already agreed that Mahmoud was targeted for his speech, and there is likely much more evidence of the government’s unlawful retaliation that has yet to come to light. This is a clear continuation of the administration’s retaliation against Mahmoud for exercising his First Amendment rights.”
Responding to the new reporting on Friday, Van Der Hout told the Times that the case's handling suggests it “has been controlled from Day 1 by higher-ups in the administration.”
"War is hell. And hell comes with a hefty price tag," said University of Michigan professor Justin Wolfers.
University of Michigan professor Justin Wolfers on Friday joined a growing number of economists and other critics casting down on what he called "the Pentagon's lowball $25 billion estimate" for the cost of President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran.
While testifying before Congress last week alongside US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Pentagon comptroller Jules "Jay" Hurst offered the $25 billion figure. However, experts have responded with raised eyebrows. Stephen Semler, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, estimated that the government spent at least $71.8 billion during the first two months of the war, or around $1.2 billion each day.
Although Trump told Congress last Friday—a key deadline under the War Powers Act—that his assault on Iran had been "terminated," citing the ceasefire deal reached a month ago after his genocidal threat, the administration has maintained its naval blockade and on Thursday bombed what it claimed were "Iranian military facilities responsible for attacking US forces."
The cost isn't just measured in billions of taxpayer dollars spent on a war that doesn't make us safer. It's measured in economic losses such as high prices working families see at the gas pump. The human toll can't be ignored. www.nytimes.com/2026/05/08/o...
[image or embed]
— Randi Weingarten 🖇️📚✊🇺🇸 (@rweingarten.bsky.social) May 8, 2026 at 2:41 PM
As the threat of more US bombings of Iran loomed, Wolfers wrote Friday in a New York Times opinion piece that "the Pentagon's stated number reflects only a narrow accounting of the tab that Operation Epic Fury is running up. It's the price of the more than 2,000 Tomahawk and Patriot missiles already fired, the warplanes already flown and in some cases lost, and the rest of the gear already chewed through. It does not measure the true cost of the war—including the human toll."
"Since the start of the war, oil markets have been disrupted, consumer confidence has cratered, the global economy is groaning, and military budgets are growing," the economist continued. "The toll from this upheaval must be counted in lives disrupted, jobs lost, companies shut down (see: Spirit Airlines), and the income and output sacrificed. The less easily quantified costs—death, disability, and mental health—could become much more dramatic should President Trump send troops into Iran, which still can't be ruled out."
As David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, detailed Friday, the war seemingly hasn't achieved any of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's shifting objectives:
The US and Israel said they wanted to eradicate Iran's nuclear program and change its regime. The regime is now composed of more hard-liners than before, and Iran's nuclear capability has not budged since last summer. Now the two sides are negotiating the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the conflict, and the terms of Iran's nuclear program, which they were negotiating before the conflict. Moreover, the compromise being contemplated involves Iran pausing uranium enrichment in exchange for the US lifting sanctions and unfreezing Iranian funds. That sounds suspiciously like the deal President Obama struck in 2015 that Trump ripped up when he took office, complete with the "bags of cash" sent to Iran that Trump flipped out over back then.
All this war has done is killed thousands of people, opened a new front for Israel in Lebanon, damaged most US military sites and most energy production facilities in the region, led to oil spills that are visible from space, created a shipping bottleneck that will take at least a year to fix, raised domestic gas prices to a record for this time of year, cost American consumers $34.3 billion and counting, ended the life of one US airline with more likely to come, and led us down an imminent path to physical shortages of critical commodities like oil, including in the United States.
I have never in my life seen a war that achieved literally none of its objectives while directly causing this many devastating costs, and I lived through Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Washington Post reported Thursday that the Central Intelligence Agency has privately warned the Trump administration that "Iran can survive the US naval blockade for at least three to four months before facing more severe economic hardship," and its "analysis might even be underestimating Iran's economic resilience if Tehran is able to smuggle oil via overland routes."
The reporting heightened concerns about how long the war may drag on. The International Monetary Fund warned last month that a prolonged conflict could cause a global recession.
Already, the war has "pushed the Federal Reserve Bank into a corner," and "Wall Street is worried, despite the market touching new highs," Wolfers wrote Friday. "My estimate—based on the movement of oil prices, along with the S&P 500—is that stocks are about 5% lower than they otherwise would be, suggesting that the war has wiped about $3 trillion off the value of these companies."
The economist also cited recent research showing that elevated "geopolitical risk leads to lower investment and employment."
Shortly after launching the war in February, the White House signaled it would need $200 billion for the operation. However, it is now seeking a $1.5 trillion defense budget for the next fiscal year—which Hegseth tried to frame as a fiscally responsible plan that puts "the American taxpayer first" in a widely ridiculed video this week. Wolfers highlighted that the budget request is "a roughly 40% boost over this year. That's a massive $600 billion increase, or roughly $4,000 per household."
Like Dayen, Wolfers also pointed to the Iraq War, which economists Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz estimated cost the US around $3 trillion, after factoring in expenses such as "lifetime medical care and disability benefits for veterans, and the higher recruitment and retention costs that follow a bloody war—all compounded by a rising interest bill."
"The best any economist can do right now is get the order of magnitude right, and my math suggests the Iran war will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and very possibly trillions," Wolfers concluded. "War is hell. And hell comes with a hefty price tag."
"ABC has finally learned that bullies don’t stop when companies cower in a corner," said one free press advocate.
ABC News earned plaudits on Friday after it came out swinging against the Trump administration's investigation into its daytime talk show "The View."
In a filing with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), first reported by The New York Times, ABC said the Trump administration's actions "threaten to upend decades of settled law and practice and chill critical protected speech, both with respect to 'The View' and more broadly."
The FCC launched an investigation into "The View" over its interview with Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico of Texas earlier this year, as the agency questioned whether the program should be exempt from Section 315 of the Communications Act, which requires networks to provide equal access to candidates' political opponents.
Disney-owned ABC noted that "'The View' has been broadcasting under a bona fide news exemption granted to it more than 20 years ago," and argued that forcing the show to abide by equal-time rules "would risk restricting political discourse exactly when it is needed most."
The network's aggressive posture against the FCC inquiry earned it praise from press freedom watchdogs who have long criticized mainstream media outlets for timidity in the face of the Trump administration's authoritarianism.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said ABC deserved kudos for "for standing up for itself and the First Amendment" amid attacks from President Donald Trump and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who has repeatedly threatened to pull broadcasters' licenses over unfavorable news coverage.
"It’s about time news outlets start telling Carr and his Donald Trump lapel pin to kick rocks," said Stern. "Otherwise, he’ll continue manufacturing bogus pretexts to harass and jawbone licensees that air content his boss doesn’t like."
Jessica J. González, co-CEO of Free Press, said she was "pleased that ABC has finally learned that bullies don’t stop when companies cower in a corner," referring to past settlements ABC and other networks made with Trump after his 2024 election victory.
"The FCC chairman has blatantly and repeatedly abused his power to silence speech that displeases Trump," said González. "This doesn’t just violate the First Amendment rights of broadcasters on the receiving end of Brendan Carr's tactics; it also harms the broadcasters’ audiences."
Mark Jacobs, former editor at the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times, similarly pointed to ABC's past capitulations to Trump, while expressing hope that the network had learned its lesson.
"Remember when ABC folded to Trump's shakedown scheme with a $15 million settlement?" he wrote in a social media post. "Maybe they thought it would buy peace with the dictator. It didn't. The regime demanded Jimmy Kimmel's firing and harassed 'The View.' Now ABC is fighting back after learning that fascists always come back for more."