

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.

Jaclyn Lopez, Center for Biological Diversity, (727) 490-9190, jlopez@biologicaldiversity.org Kyle Groetzinger, National Parks Conservation Association, (202) 893-3391, kgroetzinger@npca.org Anne Hawke, NRDC, (646) 823-4518, ahawke@nrdc.org
More than 100 conservation groups and businesses urged the U.S. Department of the Interior today to deny requests to drill for oil in Big Cypress National Preserve. The preserve, which is part of the greater Everglades region and a unit of the National Park System, provides vital habitat for endangered Florida panthers and Florida bonneted bats.
In a letter to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, the groups documented how the proposed oil-extraction activities would harm the preserve. And the groups pointed out that the fossil fuel extraction would be inconsistent with President Biden's initiatives to combat the climate crisis, protect public health, increase environmental justice and conserve U.S. lands, water and biodiversity.
"Drilling for filthy fossil fuels in this wild landscape is not in the public's interests," said Jaclyn Lopez, Florida director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "We need to protect and restore the Everglades, not sacrifice what's left of it to prop up a dying industry that continues to fuel catastrophic global warming."
"People don't come to a national park to see oil wells. The constant threat of oil and gas exploration in Big Cypress National Preserve jeopardizes the sensitive habitat this park provides for endangered species like the Florida Panther, as well as the one-of-a-kind park experience Big Cypress offers to so many visitors," said Cara Capp, senior Everglades program manager for National Parks Conservation Association. "Big Cypress should not be for sale. We are calling on Secretary Deb Haaland to affirm the Biden administration's commitment to protecting all our public lands, including Big Cypress, from harmful fossil fuel development."
While Big Cypress National Preserve is a unit of the national park system, some of the oil and gas beneath the preserve is privately owned. Burnett Oil Company, which according to the application package leases the right to explore for, and extract, oil from Collier Resources Company, is requesting permission to build new roads and oil well pads in the preserve.
The company's seismic-testing operations in 2017 and 2018 severely damaged wetlands and cypress trees in the delicate ecosystem.
The Center for Biological Diversity, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, National Parks Conservation Association and Natural Resources Defense Council have opposed Burnett Oil Company's oil and gas activities in the preserve since it began exploration in 2017 and have documented the severe impacts and lasting damages caused by operating heavy machinery in the ecosystem that can still be seen today.
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"The good news is that the global war on terror is finally over," said journalist Ken Klippenstein. "The bad news is that it came home."
As US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Thursday doubled down on claims that Renee Nicole Good had committed "an act of domestic terrorism" before being killed by a federal immigration agent, one journalist warned that the killing appeared to be the direct result of an underreported memo signed by President Donald Trump several months ago—a sign that the administration is entering a new phase in what it views as a war with the so-called "enemy within."
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) "killing of unarmed American citizen Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis has NSPM-7 written all over it," said independent journalist Ken Klippenstein, who has reported extensively on National Security Presidential Memorandum 7.
The memo was signed soon after Trump announced that Antifa—which is not an organization—had been designated a domestic terrorist group, and weeks after the White House blamed the "radical left" for the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
NSPM-7 mandates a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts," and has an exclusive focus on "anti-fascist" or left-wing activities.
Klippenstein noted on Wednesday that NSPM-7 was followed by an order signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, which directs federal law enforcement agents to crack down on "threats" to ICE officers, including actions that impede enforcement operations.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Noem highlighted the administration's claim—one that has not been made clear by evidence that's been released—that Good was impeding ICE officers on Wednesday before she was killed.
A reporter asked if Noem still believed the officer accused of killing Good, Jonathan Ross, had acted in self-defense and according to ICE procedures.
"This is an experienced officer who followed his training," said Noem. "These individuals had followed our officers all day, had harassed them, had blocked them in. They were impeding our law enforcement operations, which is against the law. And when they demanded and commanded her to get out of her vehicle several times, she did not."
Noem: "What happened was our officers were out trying to get a car stuck out of the snow when they were surrounded and assaulted and blocked in by protesters ... this was an act of domestic terrorism" (It was 40 degrees in Minneapolis yesterday and snow was melting ... ) pic.twitter.com/eGDsBnGcJE
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 8, 2026
"The directive goes on to direct prosecutors to target those interfering with or impeding ICE actions," wrote Klippenstein. "'The U.S. Attorney’s Office for each district shall prosecute any individual who assaults or forcibly impedes or intimidates these officers, who interferes with the performance of these officers’ official duties, or who attempts to do so, consistent with 18 U.S.C.§ 111 and other applicable federal laws,' the document says."
The reporter on Thursday also questioned how the administration could declare Good a domestic terrorist despite the fact that no investigation has been completed into the case.
"This was an act of domestic terrorism," she said simply.
The Trump administration's continued smearing of Good as a terrorist is a sign, said Klippenstein, that while the "global War on Terror is finally over... It came home."
Podcast host Wajahat Ali wrote that "if Renee Good is 'a domestic terrorist' according to Kristi Noem, it means the label is meaningless and will be used by the Trump administration to murder anyone it wants. From Venezuelan fishermen to anti-Trump protestors. Eyes wide open, friends."
"With this historic, bipartisan vote to prevent further war in Venezuela, Congress has begun the long-overdue work of reasserting its constitutional role in decisions of war and peace," said one observer.
Amid President Donald Trump's admission that his intervention in Venezuela could last years, US senators voted Thursday to advance legislation aimed at blocking the president's use of military forces against the oil-rich South American nation.
Senators voted 52-47 to advance a war powers resolution introduced last month by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) "to block the use of the US armed forces to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress" as required by the 1973 War Powers Act.
The Senate will now continue debating the measure, which, if passed by both the upper chamber and the House of Representatives, would be subject to a likely veto by Trump—who has sunk two previous war powers resolutions unrelated to Venezuela.
In addition to Paul, four other GOP senators voted to advance the resolution: Susan Collins of Maine, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Todd Young of Indiana. While lawmakers often assent during the procedural phase, only to cast ballots against legislation during final votes, at least one of the GOP senators signaled they will vote the same as they did Thursday.
"While I support the operation to seize [Venezuelan President] Nicolás Maduro, which was extraordinary in its precision and complexity, I do not support committing additional US forces or entering into any long-term military involvement in Venezuela or Greenland without specific congressional authorization," Collins said in a statement, referring to Trump's threats to acquire the Danish territory by force if he deems it necessary. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) this week introduced a bill that would ban the president from any such action.
"I believe invoking the War Powers Act at this moment is necessary, given the president’s comments about the possibility of ‘boots on the ground’ and a sustained engagement ‘running’ Venezuela, with which I do not agree," added Collins, who is facing a serious challenge for her Senate seat from candidates including former Maine Gov. Janet Mills and progressive Graham Platner, both Democrats who oppose US military action in Venezuela.
At the time of bipartisan war powers resolution's introduction last month, Trump had not yet attacked Venezuelan territory, although he had threatened to do so, deployed warships and thousands of US troops to the region, authorized covert CIA action to topple Maduro, and ordered the bombing of boats the administration claimed—without evidence—were smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
However, Trump dramatically escalated US intervention in Venezuela, first with a December drone strike on a port facility and then by bombing and invading the country and abducting Maduro and his wife.
Asked during a Wednesday interview with the New York Times whether the US intervention in Venezuela would last a year, or longer, Trump replied, "I would say much longer," explaining that "we will rebuild" the country "in a very profitable way," including by "taking oil" from it.
The specter of yet another US "forever war" like the ongoing open-ended War on Terror that's left nearly 1 million people dead in at least seven countries since 2001 has prompted the introduction of several congressional war powers resolutions. So far, none have passed.
“If there was ever a moment for the Senate to find its voice, it is now," Schumer said on the Senate floor ahead of Thursday's vote. "Today, the Senate must assert the authority given to it on matters of war and peace. We must send Donald Trump a clear message on behalf of the American people: No more endless wars. Donald Trump’s ready for an endless war in Venezuela, and lord knows where else. The American people are not.”
Kaine made it clear during his pre-vote Senate floor remarks that the resolution does not challenge the "execution of a valid arrest warrant against Nicolás Maduro," which—despite experts concurring that the invasion and abduction were illegal—he called "good for America and good for Venezuela."
However, Kaine said, given that Trump's intervention "will go on for a long period of time," US troops "should not be used for hostilities in Venezuela without a vote of Congress as the Constitution requires.”
“No one has ever regretted a vote that just says, Mr. President, before you send our sons and daughters to war, come to Congress," he added.
However, such votes have very rarely succeeded in stopping any president from proceeding with military action.
In 2019 during Trump's first term, the House and Senate both passed a war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to cut off US military support for the Saudi-led coalition’s atrocity-laden war on Yemen. Trump vetoed the measure, and senators lacked the two-thirds majority needed to override his move.
The following year, both houses of Congress passed another war powers resolution—this one introduced in the Senate by Kaine—to terminate military action against Iran. But Trump again vetoed the legislation, and the Senate could not muster the two-thirds majority required for an override. After returning to office last year, Trump ordered sweeping attacks on Iran—and is threatening to do so again.
While Trump took to his Truth Social network to blast the five Republican senators who voted to advance the war powers resolution on Thursday and Vice President JD Vance called the War Powers Act "fundamentally a fake and unconstitutional law," progressive and anti-war advocacy groups hailed the advancement.
"With this historic, bipartisan vote to prevent further war in Venezuela, Congress has begun the long-overdue work of reasserting its constitutional role in decisions of war and peace," Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said in a statement.
"We commend the leadership of Sens. Kaine and Paul in forcing this vote, and we thank Sens. Collins, Young, Hawley, and Murkowski for their principled votes," Kharrazian continued. "Senators should move quickly to adopt the resolution to prevent further unauthorized military escalation and the House should follow suit."
"Congress should also make clear, using the full force of the law, that no president has the authority to unilaterally launch hostilities anywhere in the world," he added, "whether in Venezuela or against other countries the administration has openly threatened, including Cuba, Greenland, Colombia, and Iran.”
"The dam has broken." Afghanistan War Veteran Max Rose applauds the Senate’s bipartisan vote advancing the War Powers Resolution. He calls it a stunning rebuke of Trump’s unilateral wars, reminding the President that the military belongs to America, not him.
[image or embed]
— VoteVets (@votevets.org) January 8, 2026 at 9:05 AM
Jose Vasquez, executive director of Common Defense and an Army veteran, said, "The vote is a victory for the Constitution, the stability of the region, and for the veterans and military families who organized, spoke out, and refused to accept another reckless slide toward forever war."
"By drawing this vote, Congress sends an essential message that accountability still matters and that no one person or presidential administration can send Americans to war," he added. "Veterans will remain organized and vigilant, but today shows what is possible when Congress listens to the will of the people and leans toward peace rather than war."
"US military power is being used as a de facto security force for the president's corporate donors and their oil interests, leaving the American taxpayer to effectively subsidize a security force for Big Oil."
As Congress weighs action to rein in the Trump administration's assault on Venezuela—as demanded by people across the United States and Latin America—Fortune on Thursday highlighted the rising cost of just the US oil blockade on the country.
The ongoing US naval blockade "has cost an estimated $700 million and counting, with two more oil tankers seized January 7, as President Donald Trump aims to sell more Venezuelan crude oil to American refineries and convince U.S. oil companies to return to embattled nation," the outlet reported.
That's based on a Center for a New American Security analysis that put the cost of operating the USS Gerald R. Ford and its aircraft carrier strike group in the region since October at more than $9 million a day—which does not account for Trump's illegal strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats or the weekend abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
Fortune's article followed December reporting on "the lopsided cost of Operation Southern Spear" from Defense One:
The estimates for every hour of the carrier’s operation is roughly $333,000, while each escort consumes a comparatively cheaper $9,200 per hour.
For the aircraft, the cost per flight hour is roughly $40,000 for the F-35s and the AC-130J; $29,900 for the P-8s; and $3,500 for the Reaper drones.
Then there are the munitions used in the attacks themselves. Analysis of the strike videos show that U.S. forces have fired Hellfire missiles (about $150,000 to $220,000 apiece) AGM-176 Griffins ($127,333 in FY2019 costs), and perhaps GBU-39B Small Diameter Bombs (roughly $40,000 each).
And on the personnel side, there is the pay and benefits for the roughly 15,000 US service members who have been deployed so far in the operation, including 5,000 ashore in Puerto Rico and 2,200 Marines aboard ships.
As for "Operation Absolute Resolve," as the US called the mission to abduct Maduro and Flores, the administration has not disclosed costs, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that nearly 200 special forces took part in the deadly raid.
The New York Times reported Saturday that "the military had been readying for days to execute the mission," and "in the run-up, Delta Force commandos rehearsed the extraction inside a full-scale model of Mr. Maduro's compound that the Joint Special Operations Command had built in Kentucky."
After being abducted, Maduro and his wife pleaded not guilty to narco-terrorism charges in a federal court in New York City. Trump has continued to make clear that his costly operations are not actually about drugs, but seizing Venezuelan oil. Senate Democrats are now probing possible dealings between his administration and fossil fuel executives related to the US attack on Saturday.
As the U.S. pursues regime change in Venezuela, it's worth remembering that the U.S.-led post-9/11 wars left millions dead and cost U.S. taxpayers trillions, with no strategic benefit to the citizens of the U.S. or any other nation. www.wsj.com/world/americ...
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) January 5, 2026 at 12:05 PM
On Tuesday, a pair of experts at the Center for American Progress (CAP) noted that the fossil fuel industry gave at least $96 million to Trump's 2024 campaign and super political action committees, "over $100 million to Trump allies and ads supporting policies championed by these allies, and more through undisclosed dark money channels," and then "contributed at least $41 million to either the inaugural fund or Trump's super PAC after the election."
"However, it is unclear whether many American oil companies actually view Venezuela as an attractive prospect: With prices hovering around $60 per barrel of oil, companies have been reluctant to make major new investments," explained CAP's Damian Murphy Allison McManus. "Venezuela's oil infrastructure will require billions of dollars to update in the medium term, and the political instability and potential security breakdowns that come from removing a head of state create a poor environment for long-term investments."
"That isn't to say that companies are completely uninterested: Some US oil companies are looking to collect billions of dollars from the country over decades-old seized oil assets," they continued. "To sweeten the deal, Trump recently has floated the prospect of subsidizing companies for rebuilding infrastructure. Still, this tepid response from the industry only underscores the chaotic and reckless nature of the administration’s foreign policymaking, which has adopted an 'act first, plan later' approach."
The pair also pointed out that "Trump has repeatedly suggested that boots on the ground could be used to guarantee access to oil resources, with the current buildup of forces signaling that a 'second wave' of military action is on standby. In essence, US military power is being used as a de facto security force for the president's corporate donors and their oil interests, leaving the American taxpayer to effectively subsidize a security force for Big Oil."
Alarmed by Trump's recent actions in and around Venezuela, the Senate on Thursday advanced a bipartisan war powers resolution—but so far, the measure still lacks the Republican support needed to get to a final vote. Even if it passed the upper chamber, the legislation would also need to get through the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.