

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Liz Trotter, Earthjustice, (305) 332-5395, etrotter@earthjustice.org
Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495, ngreenwald@biologicaldiversity.org
Daniela Arellano, NRDC, (310) 434-2304, darellano@nrdc.org
Virginia Cramer, Sierra Club, (804) 519-8449, virginia.cramer@sierraclub.org
Gwen Dobbs, Defenders of Wildlife, (202) 772-0269, gdobbs@defenders.org
Jordan Rutter, American Bird Conservancy, (202) 888-7472, jerutter@abcbirds.org
Earthjustice filed two lawsuits today in the District of Hawai'i in response to the outgoing administration's most recent attacks on the Endangered Species Act, the law that serves as the last safety net for animals and plants facing extinction.
The Trump administration issued two new regulations in December that strip vital protections from federal lands and other areas that the best available science indicates are necessary for the conservation of threatened and endangered species.
The first case filed today challenges the Trump administration's cramped interpretation of "habitat," which reverses nearly half a century of protections for habitat that needs restoration to meet species' needs, as well as areas that species will need in the future as refuges to survive dramatic changes to the world's climate.
"The drafters of this rule were clearly more concerned with easing industry regulation than upholding the foundational purpose of the ESA -- to ensure the protection, conservation and recovery of imperiled species," said Earthjustice attorney Elena Bryant, lead attorney on the challenge to the habitat definition. "We are going to court to restore protections for the habitat that is essential to pull species back from the brink of extinction."
The second case argues that the new regulations strip vital protections from federal lands and other areas that the best available science indicates are necessary for the conservation of threatened and endangered species -- and prioritize profits for polluting industries over the conservation needs of wildlife facing extinction.
"Critical habitat is a bedrock protection afforded to imperiled species under the Act," said Earthjustice attorney Leina'ala L. Ley, lead attorney challenging the critical habitat exclusion rule. "By making it harder to designate critical habitat, this rule virtually guarantees that the loss of biodiversity and our natural heritage will only accelerate."
The proposed changes directly undermine the Act's purpose to prevent extinction and promote recovery. The lawsuits were filed in Hawai'i, where the new rules could be especially damaging due in part to limited habitat for native species found nowhere else on Earth.
"The new regulation makes it easier for federal land to be excluded from critical habitat, a result that would be particularly harmful to listed bird species that depend heavily on federal lands, such as the northern spotted owl," said Steve Holmer, vice president at American Bird Conservancy. "These listed bird populations are in decline and facing serious threats. We should be adding protections, not chipping away at the safety net of the ESA."
"By requiring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to listen to industry rather than science when it decides what habitat to protect, the Trump administration's new rule is an absolute disaster for endangered species and the places they live," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The Endangered Species Act was passed to stop extinction, not facilitate it, and we expect the court to strike down this industry giveaway."
"Threatened and endangered national park species require more than just park lands for their survival and recovery," said Bart Melton, wildlife program director for the National Parks Conservation Association. "These regulations make it harder to protect vital areas outside of parks for wildlife and prioritize short-term profit over America's conservation future. In the midst of the climate crisis we should be working to uphold the core tenants of the Endangered Species Act. Instead these regulations critically damage the intent of the Act. NPCA is hopeful these regulations will be reversed."
"Critical habitat is a central pillar of the ESA's protections for listed species, and an essential part of what has made the Act a huge success for the past 50 years," said Lucas Rhoads, attorney at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). "These rules tie the Services' hands and make it more difficult to protect the areas that listed species need if they are to survive and flourish. To stem the biodiversity crisis we now face, we need the Services to use all the tools available to them -- not sell out to industry special interests at the expense of these precious species."
"In the midst of the first-ever human caused extinction crisis, one of the worst things you could do is impose restrictions on protection of areas essential to imperiled species' recovery and prioritize corporate profits over preserving the Earth's biodiversity," said Bonnie Rice, Sierra Club endangered species campaign representative. "Yet that is exactly what the Trump administration has done. Their relentless decimation of vital protections of the Endangered Species Act will be fought at every turn."
"Lack of habitat is the main reason why so many species are imperiled," said Jason Rylander, Defenders of Wildlife senior counsel. "For wildlife to have a fighting chance, they need a place to live. If we hope to save the most vulnerable wildlife from extinction, we will need to prioritize habitat restoration in their recovery."
"Hawai'i is the endangered species capital of the world; our small island home has over 30% of the nation's listed plant and animal species," said Moana Bjur, executive director of Conservation Council for Hawai'i. "For us, protecting endangered species and ecosystems is necessary not only to ensure biodiversity and climate resiliency, but also to honor our history and cultural heritage as a place."
"Designation of critical habitat is a crucial piece of the recovery process for species who have received ESA listing status," said Lindsay Larris, wildlife program director at WildEarth Guardians. "This new rule shrinks the areas even eligible to be designated as critical habitat for numerous species, making an endangered or threatened species' struggle to truly recover and thrive all the more precarious in our ever-changing and developing world."
Earthjustice filed both lawsuits on behalf of Conservation Council for Hawai'i, Center for Biological Diversity, NRDC (Natural Resource Defense Council), Defenders of Wildlife, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians. American Bird Conservancy joined the critical habitat exclusion challenge and will also be represented by Earthjustice.
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) 623-5252Iran's chief negotiator accused the Trump administration of giving the Israeli government a "green light" to continue attacking Lebanon and undermining diplomatic talks.
Update:
US President Donald Trump, Pakistan's prime minister, and the Iranian Foreign Ministry said Sunday that the US and Iran have reached an agreement on a framework to end the war that Trump launched in late February.
Iran's deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, said the terms of the deal will be made public after the memorandum of understanding is signed on Friday in Switzerland. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif wrote on social media that "both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon."
The memorandum of understanding is expected to extend the current ceasefire agreement by 60 days while detailed negotiations take place.
Gharibabadi said the start of the 60-day negotiations will be contingent on the US lifting its naval blockade of Iranian ports, "ending the state of war and military operations," and "releasing Iran's frozen funds."
Earlier:
The Israeli military bombed the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday just as Iranian and US officials voiced optimism that a diplomatic agreement is in reach, prompting accusations that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to derail the negotiations.
Israel's strikes reportedly targeted a five-story apartment building, killing at least three people, according to Lebanese authorities. Netanyahu said the bombing was a response to Hezbollah rocket fire into northern Israel.
The latest bombing of Beirut came hours after US President Donald Trump said he expected a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to be signed as early as Sunday, potentially setting the stage for negotiations to end the illegal war Trump started in late February. Iranian officials have pushed back on the US president's claim that the MOU will be signed Sunday, but Iran's foreign minister said Friday that an agreement had "never been closer."
The Associated Press reported Sunday that Israel's new strikes on Beirut "threatened to hamper negotiations over a deal, which in its current form is a deep disappointment to Israel’s government."
"The last time Israel struck the Beirut suburbs a week ago, it set off the most serious escalation of fighting between Iran and Israel since the tenuous ceasefire took hold April 7," AP added.
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, wrote on social media that "as a US-Iranian deal seems like it might be closer, Israel predictably bombs the Beirut suburbs, evidently hoping to sabotage the deal."
"Why does Trump put up with this and continue to arm and fund such obstructionism?" Roth asked.
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran's chief negotiator and speaker of parliament, said Israel's strikes indicate that the US "either does not have the will or the ability to fulfill its obligations."
"You cannot gain concessions by giving [Israel] a green light," he added. "The good cop, bad cop routine has become old. If you do not have the will or the ability to fulfill your commitments, then there is no basis for talking about continuing down this path."
As the US & Iran reportedly near a deal that includes ending the war in Lebanon, Israel is attacking Beirut again.
Either Trump can't restrain Netanyahu, or the deal is already being violated before it's signed.
Either way, it undermines the deal's value for Iran. pic.twitter.com/v08c21i7wa
— Sina Toossi (@SinaToossi) June 14, 2026
While the MOU that's reportedly under consideration has not been released in full, its broad outlines have been reported in media outlets and divulged by Iranian and US officials in recent days. Reuters reported Sunday that "a final draft of the memorandum of understanding with the US covered a range of issues, from Tehran’s nuclear work to reopening the Strait of Hormuz and US waivers on oil sanctions, with a final deal to be discussed in the 60 days following agreement by the two sides."
Under the MOU, Iran would immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz and the US would end its illegal blockade of Iranian ports, according to Reuters. The US would also agree to waive oil sanctions on Iran and release $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets, while Iran would agree to "maintain the current status of its nuclear program, refraining from further uranium enrichment and expansion of nuclear facilities."
Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, said in a television interview on Friday that the MOU's proposed 60-day ceasefire extension would include Lebanon.
Axios reported that Netanyahu has "found himself in the dark" as US-Iran negotiations have progressed in recent days, "calling allies close to the Trump administration to try and gather information."
Following Sunday's strike on Beirut, Trump told Axios' Barak Ravid that Netanyahu "has no fucking judgment."
"I passed this message on to him—that I am very unhappy with the attack in Beirut," said Trump, whose administration has approved billions of dollars worth of weapons sales to the Israeli government.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, warned that "Israel will do more sabotage unless Trump imposes a cost on Israel."
"Netanyahu knows exactly what he is doing and is judging that an attack on Beirut—rather than southern Lebanon—is exactly what's needed to derail the pending US-Iran deal," Parsi argued.
"Now in its third consecutive year of famine, Sudan received nothing."
Elon Musk's vault to trillionaire status following the public debut of his rocket company SpaceX came on the heels of an analysis showing the devastating impact of his destruction of the US Agency for International Development on millions of people in countries facing or on the brink of famine.
The analysis, authored by Council on Foreign Relations expert and longtime aid worker Sam Vigersky, noted that Musk's targeting of USAID during his tenure as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) resulted in the transfer of the Food for Peace program to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), an agency "without international humanitarian or disaster-response expertise."
Vigersky found that the USDA this year chose just seven countries to receive American grain under the Food for Peace program: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Kenya, El Salvador, and Rwanda. The latter two countries, Vigersky noted, "do not meet an emergency threshold" for assistance.
"Meanwhile, the country facing the largest hunger crisis in the world—Sudan—did not make the list. Now in its third consecutive year of famine, Sudan received nothing. In fact, more than 40% of Sudan’s community kitchens, a lifeline for the displaced, have closed in the past six months as funding dried up, according to Islamic Relief," Vigersky reported. "Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Yemen were also passed over. Millions of people in those countries live one step from famine, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the UN-backed monitoring system that uses a standardized five-point scale (five being famine) to measure the severity of food insecurity."
Experts assessing the global impact of USAID's decimation at the hands of billionaire US President Donald Trump and the world's first trillionaire, who bragged publicly about "feeding USAID into the wood chipper," estimate that hundreds of thousands of people have already died as a result of the large-scale loss of humanitarian assistance—and millions more will die in the coming years if swift action is not taken to restore aid.
"The impacts of the cuts were immediate and tragic," Nicholas Enrich, a former USAID employee who became a whistleblower, wrote in The Boston Globe on Friday. "Health clinics and emergency ambulance services shuttered overnight. Clinical trials were deserted. Thousands of healthcare workers lost their jobs. Lifesaving food and medicine was left to expire in warehouses. According to conservative estimates, in the year since USAID was dismantled, 750,000 people have died as a result of the cuts. For the first time in a generation, more children died in one year — 2025—than in the previous year."
Oxfam has estimated that a 10% tax on Musk's $1 trillion fortune would generate enough revenue to end extreme poverty worldwide for a year.
Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.