

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.

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, Western Environmental Law Center, eriksg@westernlaw.org
Carol Davis, Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, carol.davis@dine-care.org
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, tmckinnon@biologicaldiversity.
Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians, jnichols@wildearthguardians.
Raena Garcia, Friends of the Earth, rgarcia@foe.org
Kate Hudson, Waterkeeper Alliance, khudson@waterkeeper.org
Climate, indigenous and conservation groups today called on the Biden administration to halt new drilling permits and to cancel unlawful Trump-era oil and gas leases on public lands. The letter urges the Interior Department to enact a range of interim actions to protect the climate, public lands, oceans and communities pending completion of the department's climate review of federal fossil fuel programs.
"To show climate leadership and reduce emissions, the U.S. must act now where we have the ability to do so," the letter say. "Given the Secretary of Interior's authority over the federal fossil fuel estate, this is the place to start."
Today's letter cites the new International Energy Agency report showing that, even with reliance on controversial biofuels and unproven carbon capture technologies, new approvals of fossil fuel projects are incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It calls for emergency bonding, halting federal coal leasing and postponing decisions on resource management plans until the administration's climate review is finished.
In January, 574 conservation, Native American, religious and business groups sent the then president-elect text for a proposed executive order to ban new fossil fuel leasing and permitting on federal public lands and waters.
In February the Biden administration issued an executive order pausing oil and gas leasing onshore and offshore pending a climate review of federal fossil fuel programs. In April more than 200 groups filed formal comments with the administration calling for a formal climate review of the federal fossil fuel programs under the National Environmental Policy Act.
In June the Interior Department plans to issue an interim report regarding its comprehensive review, including findings from a March online forum and public comments solicited through April 15.
Today's letter, authored by Western Environmental Law Center, the Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club, was signed by Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, Citizens for a Healthy Community, Earthworks, Friends of the Earth, Waterkeeper Alliance, San Juan Collaborative for Health Equity, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Western Watersheds Project. Many of the groups' members live on the front lines of fossil fuel pollution and in communities harmed by climate change.
Statements
"We're grateful for President Biden's climate leadership and the commitments that his administration has made," said Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director of the Western Environmental Law Center. "The sensible recommendations we've provided to the administration today are intended to maximize opportunities for the administration to align the federal fossil fuels programs with the urgency compelled by the climate crisis."
"We are happy there is a pause on federal fossil fuels leasing, but we need to do more now. The damage is all too evident for communities in the four corners region," said Carol David, director of Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment. "Local farmers and traditional practitioners have spoken to us about a heat shield that for years has prohibited regular rainfall in the Shiprock, NM area. We have seen plants struggling to survive and an absence of life in the simplest form --lizards, snakes, ants. The climate has visibly degraded for people who have lived in the shadow of two power plants. We need to do more by reining in our dependence on oil, gas and coal."
"The climate emergency demands bold leadership from the Biden administration," said Taylor McKinnon, a senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The leasing pause and climate review are good first steps, but much more is needed to curb damage from the runaway drilling and fracking that are undermining U.S. climate goals."
"The Western United States is hotter and drier than ever and in severe or extreme prolonged drought," said Natasha Leger, executive director, Citizens for a Healthy Community. "Parts of Colorado and Utah have already warmed more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. It's harming people, communities, and our food supply with water scarcity, wildfires and chaotic weather. The Biden administration needs to stop the federal government's complicity in climate degradation by ending new oil and gas leasing and permitting on federal lands."
"The vanishing waters of the West have already been put at grave risk by the fracking extraction and climate-driven impacts of oil and gas development on our public lands," said Kate Hudson, western U.S. advocacy coordinator for Waterkeeper Alliance. "We urge the secretary to protect this precious and diminishing resource by withdrawing all lands in close proximity to permanent, seasonal, and intermittent surface waters and wetlands from availability for leasing while DOI conducts its much needed comprehensive programmatic review."
"The climate emergency does not allow for half measures," said Raena Garcia, fossil fuels and lands campaigner with Friends of the Earth. "Biden must uphold his promise to address the nearly 25% of U.S. emissions that come from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels from our public lands and waters. Halting all new drilling, including permitting and issuing leases from Trump's 11th-hour public lands fire sale is a critical step in making good on that promise."
"It's critical that President Biden follow through with his promise of bold climate action and just transition from fossil fuels," said Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy program director for WildEarth Guardians. "We need a pause on selling public lands for fracking, but we need to build on this pause and take further action to rein in fossil fuel production and keep our oil, gas, and coal in the ground."
"The First Law of Holes is, 'When you're in one, stop digging,'" said Erik Molvar of Western Watersheds Project. "The Biden administration is off to a good start with its goal-setting to help us climb out of the Climate Crisis, and the new focus should be to stop supplying the nation's addiction to fossil fuels from our federal lands and minerals, and to end the Biodiversity Crisis by prioritizing public lands for habitat protections."
Background
Fossil fuel production on public lands causes about a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution. Peer-reviewed science estimates that a nationwide federal fossil fuel leasing ban would reduce carbon emissions by 280 million tons per year, ranking it among the most ambitious federal climate-policy proposals in recent years.
Oil, gas and coal extraction uses mines, well pads, gas lines, roads and other infrastructure that destroys habitat for wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. Oil spills and other harms from offshore drilling have done immense damage to ocean wildlife and coastal communities. Fracking and mining also pollute watersheds and waterways that provide drinking water to millions of people.
Federal fossil fuels that have not been leased to the industry contain up to 450 billion tons of potential climate pollution; those already leased to industry contain up to 43 billion tons. Pollution from the world's already producing oil and gas fields, if fully developed, would push global warming well past 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Western Watersheds Project is an environmental conservation group working to protect and restore watersheds and wildlife through.
"Sounds like Trump preparing himself an off-ramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others," said one observer.
President Donald Trump on Friday continued to send contradictory messages on his plans for the US-Israeli assault on Iran, declaring that he is not interested in a ceasefire but is nevertheless considering "winding down" the three-week war, just two days after ordering thousands more troops to the Middle East
Trump wrote on his Truth Social network, "We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran."
Separately, the president told reporters Friday that he does not "want to do a ceasefire" in Iran.
This, after the president reportedly ordered 4,000 additional US troops deployed to the Mideast. On Friday, an unnamed US official told Axios that Trump is considering sending even more troops in order to secure the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and possibly occupy Kharg Island, home to a port from which around 90% of Iran's crude oil is exported.
Sound like Trump preparing himself an offramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others. But as it is Trump, who knows and this could change in short order.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) March 20, 2026 at 2:21 PM
Trump also said Friday that the Strait of Hormuz must be "guarded and policed" by other nations that use the vital waterway, through which around 20 million barrels of oil passed daily before the war.
Some observers questioned the timing of Trump's "winding down" post. Investment adviser Amit Kukreja said on X that Trump "obviously saw the market reaction towards the end of the day," and "now once again, he’s trying to convince everyone that the war is done; just not sure if the market believes it anymore."
Others mocked Trump's assertion—which he has repeated for two weeks—that the war is almost won, and his claim that he is winding down the operation as he sends more troops and asks Congress for $200 billion in additional funds.
Still others warned against sending US ground troops into Iran—a move opposed by more than two-thirds of American voters, according to a Data for Progress survey published Thursday.
"I cannot overstate what a disastrous decision it would be for President Trump to order American boots on the ground in this illegal war and send US troops to fight and die in Iran," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Friday on social media.
Noting other Trump contradictions—including his declaration that "we're flying wherever we want" and "have nobody even shooting at us" a day after a US F-35 fighter jet was hit by Iranian air defenses—Chicago technology and political commentator Tom Joseph said Friday on X that "Trump has no idea what he’s doing."
"Call out Trump’s incompetence. This war is like a cartoon to him. He desperately needs a series of a catastrophes to distract from Epstein so he’s letting it happen," Joseph added, referring to the late convicted child sex criminal and former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein. The war is solvable, but Trump has to go be removed from office first."
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," said one critic.
Eighty percent of Lebanese people killed in Israel's renewed airstrikes on its northern neighbor were slain in attacks targeting only or mainly civilians, a leading international conflict monitor said Friday.
Reuters, using data provided by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), reported that 666 people were killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon between March 1-16. As of Thursday, Lebanese officials said the death toll from Israeli attacks had topped 1,000.
While Lebanese authorities do not break down the combatant status of those killed and wounded during the war, Israel's targeting of civilian infrastructure, including entire apartment buildings, and reports of whole families being wiped out, have belied Israeli officials' claims that they do everything possible to avoid harming civilians.
Classified Israel Defense Forces (IDF) data leaked last year revealed that—despite Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio—83% of Palestinians killed during the first 19 weeks of the genocidal war on Gaza were civilians.
According to Gaza officials, 2,700 families were erased from the civil registry in the Palestinian exclave during Israel's genocidal assault.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," Lebanese diplomat Mohamad Safa said on social media earlier this week. "The result is exactly what we're seeing in Lebanon and Iran right now."
US-Israeli bombing of Iran has killed at least 1,444 people, according to officials in Tehran. The independent, Washington, DC-based monitor Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI) says the death toll is over twice as high as the official count and includes nearly 1,400 civilians.
The February 28 US massacre of around 175 children and staff at an elementary school for girls in the southern city of Minab—which US President Donald Trump initially tried to blame on Iran—remains the deadliest known incident of the three-week war.
As Israeli airstrikes intensify and the IDF prepares for a possible ground invasion of southern Lebanon—which Israel occupied from 1982-2000—experts are warning that noncombatants will once again pay the heaviest price.
United Nations officials and others assert that Israel's intentional attacks on civilians are war crimes. Israel is the subject of an ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who are accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
"Deliberately attacking civilians or civilian objects amounts to a war crime," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan said earlier this week. "In addition, international law provides for specific protections for healthcare workers, as well as people at heightened risk, such as the elderly, women, and displaced people."
As was the case during Israel's bombing of Gaza and Lebanon following the October 7, 2023 attack, journalists are apparently being deliberately targeted again. Reporters Without Borders said in December that, for the third straight year, Israel was the world's leading killer of journalists in 2025.
"This was a deliberate, targeted attack on journalists," said RT correspondent Steve Sweeney after narrowly surviving an IDF airstrike on Thursday. "There's no mistake about it. This was an Israeli precision strike from a fighter jet."
"But if they think they’re going to silence us, if they think we're going to stay out of the field, they’re very, very much mistaken," he added.