January, 20 2021, 11:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Shiloh Hernandez, Western Environmental Law Center, 406-204-4861, hernandez@westernlaw.org
Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians, 303-437-7663, jnichols@wildearthguardians.org
Barbara Gottlieb, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 301-806-6826, bgottlieb@psr.org
Daniel Timmons, WildEarth Guardians, 505-570-7014, dtimmons@wildearthguardians.org
As President Biden Takes Office, Groups Double Down on Legal Push to End Fracking on Public Lands
As Joe Biden prepared to assume the presidency this week, a coalition filed a lawsuit to overturn the Trump administration's sale of more than 1 million acres of public lands in the American West for fracki
WASHINGTON
As Joe Biden prepared to assume the presidency this week, a coalition filed a lawsuit to overturn the Trump administration's sale of more than 1 million acres of public lands in the American West for fracking.
Filed in federal court by WildEarth Guardians, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Western Environmental Law Center, the lawsuit targets the Trump administration's failure to address the climate and public health consequences of leasing public lands to the oil and gas industry for drilling and extraction. The case targets the sale of public lands across Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
"While the Trump administration attempted to illegally cede our public lands and climate to the oil and gas industry and recklessly ignore climate science, we've been there to challenge them in court at every step of the way," said Shiloh Hernandez, Staff Attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center. "The time has come for BLM to take stock of the monumental danger caused by its entire oil and gas program."
President Joe Biden has pledged to end the sale of public lands to the oil and gas industry, and the lawsuit aims to ensure the new administration follows through with bold climate and health action to keep fossil fuels in the ground.
"It's critical for President Biden to take swift action to not only end the sale of public lands for fracking, but undo the damage done by the Trump administration," said Jeremy Nichols, Climate and Energy Program Director for WildEarth Guardians. "The federal oil and gas program is nothing but an injustice, President Biden needs to put public lands to work for people and the climate, not for the fossil fuel industry."
"Stopping oil and gas leasing on public lands will help our nation address the climate crisis, which harms the health of people across the country and around the globe," said Barbara Gottlieb, director of Environment & Health at Physicians for Social Responsibility. "At the same time it will protect our public lands, their air and their water supplies from dangerous, toxic pollution. A win in this lawsuit is a win for public health."
The lawsuit is also the latest in a series of legal actions challenging the Trump administration for selling public lands for fracking in violation of federal environmental laws.
This week, on behalf of a coalition of plaintiffs, the Western Environmental Law Center filed an amended lawsuit to overturn the sale of nearly 45,000 acres of public lands in New Mexico's Greater Chaco region.
Last week, WildEarth Guardians and the Western Environmental Law Center filed suit to overturn the sale of nearly 60,000 acres of public lands in Montana. And earlier this month, WildEarth Guardians called on a federal appeals court to block the sale of nearly 70,000 acres of public lands in New Mexico.
The lawsuits come on the heels of numerous court wins that have rejected the Trump administration's attempts to sell off millions of acres of public lands to the oil and gas industry without analyzing the cumulative effects drilling and burning enormous quantities of fossil fuels would have in worsening the climate crisis.
- In March 2019, a federal court rejected the Bureau of Land Management's sale of more than 300,000 acres in Wyoming.
- In early 2020, an Idaho judge overturned the sale of nearly 1 million acres in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.
- In May 2020, a federal court reversed the sale of nearly 150,000 acres of public lands for fracking in Montana.
- In October, the Trump administration voluntarily asked a court to reject the sale of more than 1.8 million acres of public lands for fracking in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
- In November 2020, a federal court again rejected the sale of public lands for fracking in Wyoming.
- In December 2020, a court also rejected the sale of 60,000 acres of public lands for fracking in Utah.
"Just like with the election, the Trump administration proved that it is best at losing," said Daniel Timmons, staff attorney for WildEarth Guardians. "Thankfully, Trump's losses have been big wins for our climate and clean energy future and now present major opportunities for the Biden administration to get things right."
Science supports winding down and ultimately phasing out fossil fuel production as an essential strategy to confronting the climate crisis.
A 2018 U.S. Geological Survey report found that oil and gas produced from public lands and waters contributes 10% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. And a 2018 report by the Stockholm Environmental Institute confirmed that ending public lands fossil fuel production could significantly reduce nationwide greenhouse gases.
Ending the sale of public lands for fracking would also yield enormous health benefits. A report in June 2019 released by Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of New York confirmed extensive health risks associated with oil and gas extraction, including cancer, asthma, pre-term birth, and more.
The Western Environmental Law Center uses the power of the law to safeguard the public lands, wildlife, and communities of the American West in the face of a changing climate. We envision a thriving, resilient West, abundant with protected public lands and wildlife, powered by clean energy, and defended by communities rooted in an ethic of conservation.
(541) 485-2471LATEST NEWS
Nigerian Village Bombed by Trump Has 'No Known History' of Anti-Christian Terrorism, Locals Say
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigeria's information minister.
Dec 27, 2025
When President Donald Trump launched a series of airstrikes in Nigeria on Christmas, he described it as an attack against "ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians."
But locals in a town that was hit during the strike say terrorism has never been a problem for them. On Friday, CNN published a report based on interviews with several residents of Jabo, which was hit by a US missile during Thursday's attack, which landed just feet away from the town's only hospital.
The rural town of Jabo is part of the Sokoto state in northwestern Nigeria, which the Trump administration and the Nigerian government said was hit during the strike.
Both sides have said militants were killed during the attack, but have not specified their identities or the number of casualties.
Kabir Adamu, a security analyst from Beacon Security and Intelligence in Abuja, told Al Jazeera that the likely targets are members of “Lakurawa,” a recently formed offshoot of ISIS.
But the Trump administration's explanation that their home is at the center of a "Christian genocide" left many residents of Jabo confused. As CNN reported:
While parts of Sokoto face challenges with banditry, kidnappings and attacks by armed groups including Lakurawa–which Nigeria classifies as a terrorist organization due to suspected affiliations with [the] Islamic State–villagers say Jabo is not known for terrorist activity and that local Christians coexist peacefully with the Muslim majority.
Bashar Isah Jabo, a lawmaker who represents the town and surrounding areas in Nigeria's parliament, described the village to CNN as “a peaceful community” that has “no known history of ISIS, Lakurawa, or any other terrorist groups operating in the area.”
While the town is predominantly Muslim, resident Suleiman Kagara, told reporters: "We see Christians as our brothers. We don’t have religious conflicts, so we weren’t expecting this."
Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation with more than 237 million people, has a long history of violence between Christians and Muslims, with each making up about half the population.
However, Nigerian officials have disputed claims by Republican leaders—including US Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)—who have claimed that the government is “ignoring and even facilitating the mass murder of Christians.”
The senator recently claimed, without citing a source for the figures, that "since 2009, over 50,000 Christians in Nigeria have been massacred, and over 18,000 churches and 2,000 Christian schools have been destroyed" by the Islamist group Boko Haram.
Cruz is correct that many Christians have been killed by Boko Haram. But according to reports by the US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project and the Council on Foreign Relations, the majority of the approximately 53,000 civilians killed by the group since 2009 have been Muslim.
Moreover, the areas where Boko Haram is most active are in northeastern Nigeria, far away from where Trump's strikes were conducted. Attacks on Christians cited in October by Cruz, meanwhile, have been in Nigeria's Middle Belt region, which is separate from violence in the north.
The Nigerian government has pushed back on what they have called an "oversimplified" narrative coming out of the White House and from figures in US media, like HBO host Bill Maher, who has echoed Cruz's overwrought claims of "Christian genocide."
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigerian information minister Mohammed Idris Malagi. “While Nigeria, like many countries, has faced security challenges, including acts of terrorism perpetrated by criminals, couching the situation as a deliberate, systematic attack on Christians is inaccurate and harmful. It oversimplifies a complex, multifaceted security environment and plays into the hands of terrorists and criminals who seek to divide Nigerians along religious or ethnic lines."
Anthea Butler, a religious scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, has criticized the Trump administration's attempts to turn the complex situation in Nigeria into a "holy war."
"This theme of persecution of Christians is a very politically charged, and actually religiously charged, theme for evangelicals across the world. And when you say that Christians are being persecuted, that’s a thing," she told Democracy Now! in November. "It fits this sort of savior narrative of this American sort of ethos right now that is seeing itself going into countries for a moral war, a moral suasion, as it were, to do something to help other people."
Nigeria also notably produces more crude oil than any other country in Africa. Trump has explicitly argued that the US should carry out regime change in Venezuela for the purposes of "taking back" that nation's oil.
Butler has doubted the sincerity of Trump's concern for the nation's Christians due to his administration's denial of entry for Nigerian refugees, as well as virtually every other refugee group, with the exception of white South Africans.
She said: "I think this is sort of disingenuous to say you’re going to go in and save Christianity in Nigeria, when you have, you know, banned Nigerians from coming to this country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Russia Launches Drone Barrage on Kyiv Ahead of Zelenskyy-Trump Meeting
The attacks came as Trump and Zelenskyy are expected to discuss critical questions in a Ukraine-Russia peace deal, including its territorial sovereignty, NATO protections, and control over its natural resources.
Dec 27, 2025
As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made his way to Florida for a pivotal set of talks this weekend with US President Donald Trump, Russia launched a barrage of drone and missile attacks on Kyiv early Saturday morning.
At least two people were killed in the Ukrainian capital during the 10-hour attack, with 44 more—including two children—injured. Hundreds of thousands of residents are left to brave near-freezing temperatures without heat following the attack, which cut off power supplies.
The attack came as Zelenskyy prepared to stop in Canada before meeting with Trump on Sunday to discuss a 20-point plan to end the nearly four-year war with Russia that has been the subject of weeks of negotiation between US and Ukrainian emissaries.
Zelenskyy is seeking to maintain Ukraine's territorial sovereignty without having to surrender territory—namely, the eastern Donbass region that is largely occupied by Russian forces. He also hopes that any agreement to end the war will come with a long-term security guarantee reminiscent of NATO.
On Friday, Zelenskyy told reporters that the peace deal was 90% complete. But Trump retorted that Zelenskyy "doesn't have anything until I approve it."
Trump has expressed hostility toward Zelenskyy throughout his presidency. In February, before berating him in a now-infamous Oval Office meeting, Trump insisted falsely that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for starting the war in 2022.
Zelenskyy's latest peace proposal was issued in response to Trump's proposal last month, which was heavily weighted in Russia's favor.
It called for Ukraine to recognize Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and cede the entirety of the Donbass, about 2,500 square miles of territory, to Russia, including territory not yet captured. Trump's plan puts a cap of 600,000 personnel on Ukraine's military and calls for Ukraine to add a measure in its constitution banning it from ever joining NATO.
Earlier this year, Trump demanded that Ukraine give up $500 billion worth of its mineral wealth in what he said was "repayment" for US military support during the war (even though that support has only totalled about $175 billion).
In his latest proposal, Trump has pared down his demands to the creation of a "Ukraine Development Fund" that would include the "extraction of minerals and natural resources" as part of a joint US-Ukraine reconstruction effort.
While those terms appear less exploitative, the reconstruction program is expected to be financed by US loans from firms like BlackRock, which have been heavily involved in the diplomatic process.
"The infrastructure rebuilt with these loans—ports, rail lines, power grid—won’t be Ukrainian in any meaningful sense. It’ll be owned by international consortiums, operated for profit, with revenues flowing out to service the debt," wrote the Irish geopolitical commentator Deaglan O'Mulrooney on Tuesday. "In other words, Ukraine will be gutted."
Despite the criticism, Zelenskyy has signaled support in principle for the US reconstruction proposal as an alternative to direct expropriation.
The "red lines" for Zelenskyy heading into his talk with Trump are related to Ukraine's territorial integrity. He has said he will not recognize Russian control of the Donbass, or the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the largest nuclear facility in Europe, which Russia currently controls. He has also demanded that all terms of a peace agreement come up for a referendum among the Ukrainian people, which is strongly against territorial concessions.
At the same time, however, he insisted Saturday that "Ukraine is willing to do whatever it takes to stop this war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
British Activist Blasts 'Sociopathic Greed' of Big Tech After US Judge Blocks His Detention
"I chose to take on the biggest companies in the world, to hold them accountable, to speak truth to power. There is a cost attached to that," said Imran Ahmed, one of five Europeans targeted by the Trump administration.
Dec 26, 2025
After a US judge on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump's administration from detaining one of the European anti-disinformation advocates hit with a travel ban earlier this week, Imran Ahmed suggested that he is being targeted because artificial intelligence and social media companies "are increasingly under pressure as a result of organizations like mine."
Ahmed is the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The 47-year-old Brit lives in Washington, DC with his wife and infant daughter, who are both US citizens. While the Trump administration on Tuesday also singled out Clare Melford of the Global Disinformation Index, Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg of HateAid, and Thierry Breton, a former European commissioner who helped craft the Digital Services Act, Ahmed is reportedly the only one currently in the United States.
On Wednesday, Ahmed, who is a legal permanent resident, sued top Trump officials including US Attorney General Pam Bondi, Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting Director Todd Lyons, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the District Court for the Southern District of New York.
"Rather than disguise its retaliatory motive, the federal government was clear that Mr. Ahmed is being 'SANCTIONED' as punishment for the research and public reporting carried out by the nonprofit organization that Mr. Ahmed founded and runs," the complaint states. "In other words, Mr. Ahmed faces the imminent prospect of unconstitutional arrest, punitive detention, and expulsion for exercising his basic First Amendment rights."
"The government's actions are the latest in a string of escalating and unjustifiable assaults on the First Amendment and other rights, one that cannot stand basic legal scrutiny," the filing continues. "Simply put, immigration enforcement—here, immigration detention and threatened deportation—may not be used as a tool to punish noncitizen speakers who express views disfavored by the current administration."
Just a day later, Judge Vernon Broderick, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, issued a temporary restraining order, blocking the administration from arresting or detaining Ahmed. The judge also scheduled a conference for Monday afternoon.
The US Department of State said Thursday that "the Supreme Court and Congress have repeatedly made clear: The United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country or reside here."
Ahmed's lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said that "the federal government can't deport a green-card holder like Imran Ahmed, with a wife and young child who are American, simply because it doesn't like what he has to say."
In the complaint and interviews published Friday, Ahmed pointed to his group's interactions with Elon Musk, a former member of the Trump and administration and the richest person on Earth. He also controls the social media platform X, which sued CCDH in 2023.
"We were sued by Elon Musk a couple of years ago, unsuccessfully; a court found that he was trying to impinge on our First Amendment rights to free speech by using law to try and silence our accountability work," Ahmed told the BBC.
Months after a federal judge in California threw out that case last year, Musk publicly declared "war" on the watchdog.
CCDH's work is being targeted by the U.S. State Department trying to sanction and deport our CEO, Imran Ahmed. This is an unconstitutional attempt to silence anyone who dares to criticize social media giants. But a federal judge has temporarily blocked his detention.More in BBC ⤵️
[image or embed]
— Center for Countering Digital Hate (@counterhate.com) December 26, 2025 at 4:05 PM
"What it has been about is companies that simply do not want to be held accountable and, because of the influence of big money in Washington, are corrupting the system and trying to bend it to their will, and their will is to be unable to be held accountable," Ahmed told the Guardian. "There is no other industry, that acts with such arrogance, indifference, and a lack of humility and sociopathic greed at the expense of people."
Ahmed explained that he spent Christmas away from his wife and daughter because of the Trump administration's track record of quickly sending targeted green-card holders far away from their families. He said: "I chose to take on the biggest companies in the world, to hold them accountable, to speak truth to power. There is a cost attached to that. My family understands that."
The British newspaper noted that when asked whether he thought UK politicians should use X, the former Labour Party adviser told the Press Association, "Politicians have to make decisions for themselves, but every time they post on X, they are putting a buck in Mr. Musk's pocket and I think they need to question their own consciences and ask themselves whether or not they think they can carry on doing that."
Ahmed also said that it was "telling that Mr. Musk was one of the first and most vociferous in celebrating the press release" about the sanctions against him and the others.
"He said it was great, and it is great, but not for the reasons that he thinks," the campaigner said. "Because what it has actually done is give a chance for the system to show that the advocacy that we do is both important and protected by the First Amendment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular