

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.

Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495, ngreenwald@biologicaldiversity.org
Virginia Cramer, Sierra Club, (804) 519-8449, virginia.cramer@sierraclub.org
Gwen Dobbs, Defenders of Wildlife, (202) 772-0269, gdobbs@defenders.org
National environmental groups filed a lawsuit today in the Southern District of New York challenging the Trump administration's reinterpretation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which eliminated longstanding, vital protections for more than 1,000 species of waterfowl, raptors and songbirds.
Under the Trump administration's revised interpretation, the Act's protections will apply only to activities that are specifically intended to kill birds. So-called "incidental" take, regardless of its impact on bird populations or how foreseeable that impact is--such as letting birds drown in uncovered oil pits--is rendered immune from enforcement under the law.
"Trump's tenure has been a reign of terror for the environment, and his cruel insistence on destroying this century-old law is a testament to his total disregard for wildlife," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The revised rule is nothing but a gift to oil companies and other polluters, allowing them to kill birds without legal consequence. The courts rightfully stopped this farce once before, and we hope this latest suit again fully restores legal protection to birds that desperately need it."
Had the Trump administration's policy been in place at the time of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, British Petroleum would have avoided paying more than $100 million in fines to support wetland and migratory bird conservation to compensate for more than a million birds the accident was estimated to have killed.
"Trump's rollback of migratory bird protections is an appalling and inexcusable give-away to corporate polluters who don't want to face any consequences for killing birds," said Bonnie Rice, Sierra Club's endangered species representative. "Two-thirds of North America's birds are imperiled by climate change. More than three billion birds have vanished since 1970. We need more protections, not less, in the face of this massive loss and the current human-caused extinction crisis."
"We are back in the courts to fight the Trump administration's callous decision to eliminate protections for migratory birds," said Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife. "Even though a federal court already ruled that the administration's reinterpretation of the MBTA was illegal, it pushed forward with its rulemaking to cement this destructive policy into law. We are here to overturn this terrible decision once and for all."
Background
The Trump administration began its assault on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in December 2017 with a legal opinion authored by Daniel Jorjani, the solicitor of the Department of the Interior and a former Koch Industries employee. This opinion has already allowed birds deaths across the country that could have easily been avoided. In May 2018 the Center and allies filed suit in the Southern District of New York to challenge the proposed revision, resulting in a blistering court decision overturning the opinion.
Flouting the court ruling invalidating the basis for the reinterpretation, the Trump administration moved ahead with finalizing the rule on Jan. 4, along with a flurry of other last-minute actions aimed at eviscerating an array of essential environmental laws and regulations.
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) 623-5252One critic blasted the impending move as "an obvious example of what happens when a corrupt administration and fossil fuel interests are allowed to run amok."
In what experts warn would be the most sweeping rollback of US climate policy ever, the Trump administration is expected this week to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency's "endangerment finding," the Obama-era rule empowering climate regulation over the past 15 years.
The endangerment finding determined that six greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—caused by burning fossil fuels are a single air pollutant that threatens public health and welfare, rather than treating each gas individually, for regulatory purposes.
The 2009 finding has served as the legal foundation for EPA climate rules, including limits on power plant emissions and automobile fuel economy standards under the Clean Air Act.
The new rule would end the regulatory requirement to measure and report vehicle emissions, certify the results, and comply with limits. It would also repeal compliance programs and credit provisions.
“This amounts to the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a Monday interview with the Wall Street Journal.
However, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) warned Tuesday on the upper chamber floor that "this week, the Trump administration is set to take one of its most nakedly corrupt steps since Donald Trump returned to office, and that’s saying a lot: a wholesale reversal of essentially all greenhouse gas regulations."
"Trump is making a radical move that will send shockwaves across the economy—uncertainty for manufacturers, states, regulators everywhere. And it flies in the face, of course, of basic science," Schumer said. "Let's be very clear what this announcement represents: It is a corrupt giveaway to Big Oil, plain and simple."
"Big Oil has worked tirelessly for decades to undermine rules that protect against emissions, and now that they have their guy in the White House, they are taking their biggest swing yet," the senator added. "Remember, in the spring of 2024, Donald Trump invited top oil executives to Mar-a-Lago and told them, if you raise me a billion dollars to get me elected, I will cut regulations so you can make more money. That devil’s bargain is now coming true."
Trump is trying to repeal the "endangerment finding" -- the scientific investigation that led EPA to conclude that climate change is dangerous to humans.It's scientifically unjustifiable of course, but they're going to have to justify it to a court. That should be fun to watch.
[image or embed]
— David Roberts (@volts.wtf) February 10, 2026 at 9:22 AM
Big Oil spent over $445 million to elect Trump and other Republican candidates during the 2024 election cycle.
Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonprofit advocacy group, said in a statement Tuesday that “Zeldin took a chainsaw to the endangerment finding, undoing this long-standing, science-based finding on bogus grounds at the expense of our health.”
“Ramming through this unlawful, destructive action at the behest of polluters is an obvious example of what happens when a corrupt administration and fossil fuel interests are allowed to run amok,” Goldman added.
More than 1,000 scientists and other experts have implored EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to not repeal the endangerment finding. In a statement last year, the Environmental Protection Network warned that repealing the finding would result in “tens of thousands of additional premature deaths due to pollution exposure” over the next several decades and spark “accelerated climate destabilization with greater risks of heatwaves, floods, droughts, and disease spread.”
While Trump administration officials told the Journal that the new rules would not apply to regulation of emissions from power plants and oil and gas facilities, some said that repealing the endangerment finding could set the stage for additional rollbacks favoring such polluters.
UCS noted Tuesday that the Trump administration “relied heavily on shoddy science in a report developed by a ‘Climate Working Group,’ composed of five skeptics well outside the scientific mainstream in its proposal to repeal the endangerment finding."
“The report, which was commissioned by the Department of Energy (DOE), has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community, which found that the report ‘misrepresents the state of climate science by cherry-picking evidence, exaggerating uncertainties, and ignoring decades of peer-reviewed research,’” UCS continued.
On January 30, Judge William Young of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, ruled that the DOE violated the law when Energy Secretary Chris Wright—the former CEO of a fracking company who denies there is a climate emergency—handpicked the five researchers for the dubious report.
Republicans have been working toward killing the endangerment finding for years. Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a right-wing overhaul of the federal government, explicitly mentions the rule as ripe for repeal. Project 2025’s policy lead, Russell Vought, now directs Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
OMB Acting Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Jeffrey Clark—a purveyor of the “Big Lie” that Democrats stole the 2020 election—has also been working hard at dismantling federal climate regulations, which he once likened to a “Leninistic” plot to control the US economy.
“Instead of rising to the challenge with necessary policies to protect people’s well-being, the Trump administration has shamefully abandoned EPA’s mission and caved to the whims of deep-pocketed special interests,” Goldman said. “Sacrificing people’s health, safety, and futures for polluters’ profits is unconscionable. We all deserve better and this attack against the public interest and the best available science will be challenged.”
Climate scientist Michael Mann called the campaign to repeal the endangerment finding “a reminder that, while some of the damage that Trump [and the] GOP are doing might seem temporary, the damage they’re doing to the planet is permanent.”
Or, as Cardiff University ecologist Aaron Thierry put it, “You can repeal an endangerment finding. You can’t repeal the endangerment.”
Former Rep. Tom Malinowski also decried the influence of AIPAC “dark money” on the Democratic primary process.
Former Rep. Tom Malinowski on Tuesday conceded the 2026 Democratic primary race to represent New Jersey's 11th Congressional District to progressive challenger Analilia Mejía, whom he vowed to back in the general election.
In a statement posted on social media, Malinowski praised Mejía for "running a positive campaign and for inspiring so many voters," while also emphasizing that "it is essential that we send a Democrat to Washington to fill this seat, not a rubber stamp" for President Donald Trump.
Malinowski then unloaded on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the US. Through its super PAC, the United Democracy Project, AIPAC spent a significant sum hammering the former Democratic congressman with negative ads that accused him of supporting Trump and US Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) operations.
"The outcome of this race cannot be understood without also taking into account the massive flood of dark money that AIPAC spent on dishonest ads," he said. "I wish I could say today that this effort, which was meant to intimidate Democrats across the country, failed in NJ-11. But it did not. I met several voters in the final days of the campaign who had seen the ads and asked me, sincerely, 'Are you MAGA? Are you for ICE?'"
During his previous tenure serving in Congress from 2019 to 2023, Malinowski was a reliable vote in favor of sending military aid to Israel. However, AIPAC and some associated political action committees decided to target the New Jersey Democrat when he suggested putting conditions on future aid packages to Israel.
Malinowski said that no Democrat should accept support from AIPAC, which he described as a pernicious influence on US elections.
"Our Democratic Party should have nothing to do with a pro-Trump-billionaire-funded organization," he said, "that demands absolute fealty to positions that are outside of the American pro-Israel community, then smears those who don't fall in line."
Malinowski vowed to oppose any candidate that AIPAC backs "openly or surreptitiously" in future contests in the district.
"The threat unlimited dark money poses to our democracy," he emphasized, "is far more significant than the views of a single member of Congress on Middle East policy."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who also endorsed Mejía in the Democratic primary, also congratulated her on her win, emphasizing the significant number of obstacles she needed to overcome before emerging victorious.
"Starting with almost no name recognition, Analilia Mejía took on the oligarchs, the Republican establishment and Democratic establishment—and WON," Sanders wrote on social media. "The American people want leaders who stand up to the billionaire class and fight for working families."
The progressive advocacy organization Our Revolution praised Mejía for beating New Jersey machine politics, and pointed to her past campaign work as a sign of what she could do if she wins the April general election and is sworn in as a congresswoman.
"As a grassroots organizer, she helped win a $15 minimum wage and paid sick days," Our Revolution wrote. "As national political director for Bernie 2020, she's built movements to un-rig the economy. Now, she's ready to take this fight to Washington. When we organize, we win!"
"Congress must not accept this unjustifiable, $10.3 billion giveaway," said the office of Sen. Ron Wyden, who is leading the repeal effort.
The Republican-controlled US Senate is expected to vote Tuesday on a Democratic resolution aimed at overturning a major tax giveaway to large corporations that the Trump administration quietly implemented last year without congressional approval.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution is led by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. In a memo released ahead of Tuesday's vote, Wyden's office noted that the Trump administration's regulatory assault on the Biden-era corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT) is expected to hand corporations and private equity firms more than $10 billion in tax breaks.
"This tax break is hidden inside new guidance, IRS Notice 2025-28," Wyden's office observed. "The notice makes changes to the rules governing how corporate giants and private equity firms can count income coming from partnerships they own, essentially giving those corporations a 'choose-your-own-tax-rate' adventure."
The CAMT, approved under the Inflation Reduction Act in an effort to combat corporate tax avoidance, requires highly profitable US companies to pay a tax of at least 15% on so-called book profits, the numbers that are reported to shareholders.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, said in a statement opposing the Trump administration's weakening of the CAMT that the Trump administration's guidance "offers corporations a 'rainbow of choices' in how they calculate their share of partnership book income for minimum tax purposes, several of which deviate significantly from the statutory intent of tying corporate minimum tax liability to book income rather than taxable income."
"The weakened rules, combined with the administration’s hollowing out of IRS enforcement (which make it less likely that corporations, complex partnerships, and their owners will pay what they legally owe) mean corporations are racking up large tax cuts that weren’t enacted by Congress," the group added. "The corporate minimum tax was initially estimated to raise $222 billion over ten years, but the actual revenue will likely be far lower in part due to special giveaways already granted by the administration."
Wyden's effort to overturn the Trump administration's unilateral erosion of the CAMT—which comes on top of the massive tax cuts for corporations that congressional Republicans approved last summer—also drew support from the conservative Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, whose president, Maya MacGuineas, said in a Tuesday statement that "we ought to be strengthening the tax base and improving tax enforcement, not opening up new loopholes that undermine the intent of the law."
"The current Congressional Review Act measure would help restore the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax to its intended design," said MacGuineas. "It would be a small first step—a baby step really—toward beginning to get our fiscal house in order."