

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.

Today, a diverse group of more than 300 nonprofits, organizations, and businesses sent a letter to U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland urging her to direct the National Park Service to address the growing plastic pollution crisis by banning unnecessary single-use plastic from the nation's 423 national parks. The letter, which was aptly delivered during a month observed as both Plastic-Free July and Park and Recreation Month, calls for eliminating the sale and distribution of polystyrene-foam products and single-use plastic bottles, bags, and foodware -- including cups, plates, bowls, and utensils -- in national parks.
"Millions of people flock to our national parks every year to enjoy incredible experiences of nature, history, and culture. But plastic pollution has been creeping into these special places at alarming rates -- a 2020 study found that even the rain that falls in our national parks contains plastic," said Christy Leavitt, Oceana's plastics campaign director. "Unnecessary single-use plastics have no place in our country's most treasured spaces, and Secretary Haaland has the power to ignite that change."
The move would build on the Green Parks Plan and previous efforts to reduce the sale of bottled water in parks; ensure visitors have access to safe water; and save parks, visitors, and park partners money.
"The science has found that plastic pollution is an epidemic impacting all environments in every climate and region on this planet, causing a health crisis that is slowly building. We strongly encourage the National Park Service to lead in its conservation practices by eliminating all single-use plastics for public consumption in its national parks," said Alison Waliszewski, policy and outreach manager at the 5 Gyres Institute. "This type of leadership will nudge consumer behavior toward better decision-making, encourage inclusion of new and innovative alternatives, and signal a commitment to the health of our fragile ecosystems worldwide."
A ban would also advance the Biden administration's goals for addressing environmental justice and the climate crisis. Plastic production facilities, incinerators, and landfills are often located in low income communities and communities of color, where they pollute residents' air, water, and soil.
"The problem is that plastic pollution isn't just an issue of waste accumulation," said Mariana Del Valle Preito Cervantes with Green Latinos. "Plastics are also manufactured and often incinerated in communities where poor people and people of color live. Plastic pollution is fueling the climate crisis, hurting the health of our communities and the environment. Having the National Park Service eliminate the sale and distribution of single-use plastics in our national parks is a good first step by the Biden administration in recognizing the problem of plastic pollution."
By eliminating single-use plastics, the National Park Service can help protect these communities.
"The National Park Service has a golden opportunity to illustrate the agency's commitment to environmental protection by prohibiting the sale of plastic bottles in national parks," said Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics. "Plastic production poisons communities where it is manufactured and is responsible for major greenhouse gas emissions. This is an environmental justice issue where we need President Biden to lead."
If Secretary Haaland required such a change, the National Park Service would also be reducing its carbon footprint, as plastic contributes to climate change at every stage of its life cycle. In fact, if plastic were a country, it would be the fifth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
"While our national parks are often called 'America's best idea,' single-use plastics are one of the worst," said Julia Cohen, managing director of the Plastic Pollution Coalition. "99% of plastics are made from fossil fuels, and plastic pollutes at every stage of its existence. We urge Secretary Haaland to eliminate the sale and use of single-use plastics in U.S. national parks. Let's stop trashing our treasures -- our national parks!"
This would not be the first time the U.S. government addressed plastic pollution in national parks. In 2011, President Obama encouraged national parks to ban the sale of plastic water bottles. The Trump administration scrapped the policy in 2017, forcing 23 parks that had gone bottle-free, including the Grand Canyon and Zion, to reverse course. It has been four years since the National Park Service has taken meaningful steps to protect its revered spaces from plastic pollution, and it is time to get back on track.
" Washington State's three national parks -- Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and Olympic -- stand as role models for protecting our lands and providing amazing recreational activities for visitors from around the globe," said Heather Trim, executive director at Zero Waste Washington. "Halting the sale of single-use plastic water bottles is a terrific first step for these national iconic places."
Scientists estimate that 33 billion pounds of plastic wash into the ocean every year. That equates to about two garbage trucks' worth of plastic entering the ocean every minute. Just this past November, Oceana found evidence of nearly 1,800 marine mammals and sea turtles swallowing or becoming entangled in plastic in U.S. waters between 2009 and early 2020, and 88% of those animals were from species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
"Plastic pollution has been a growing problem worldwide. We are delighted to have worked with a strong coalition to bring the request for eliminating single-use plastics in national parks to Secretary Haaland," said Melissa Jung, program and outreach manager at Inland Ocean Coalition. "Our national parks, communities and all the watersheds leading to the ocean will benefit from this important conservation effort."
Plastic has been found in every corner of the world and has turned up in drinking water, beer, salt, honey, and more.
"Plastic pollution poses an alarming threat to the health of our national parks, their waterways and wildlife, from Biscayne National Park in Florida to Katmai National Park and Preserve in Alaska," said Sarah Barmeyer, Senior Managing Director for Conservation Programs at the National Parks Conservation Association. "We need bold action to protect our parks from plastic pollution, and halting sales of unnecessary single-use plastics within park boundaries is a logical place to start. With viable alternatives, there is no need to continue putting our parks and communities at risk from plastic pollution."
Recycling alone will not solve this problem -- only 9% of the plastic waste ever created has been recycled, and companies continue to push new plastic products into the market. With plastic production growing at a rapid rate, increasing amounts of plastic can be expected to flood our planet with devastating consequences.
"As business leaders, we have a responsibility to the communities in which we live and work--not only to create products and services that serve our people and planet, but to actively use our expertise, experience, and resources to advocate for positive change," said Michael Martin, founder and CEO of r.Cup and Effect Partners. "That's why we've signed onto this letter calling on Secretary Haaland to eliminate the sale and distribution of single-use plastics in our national parks."
"Oceanic Global is proud to support this initiative that aligns with our core programs which are focused on helping businesses implement alternatives to single-use plastics while holding them accountable to global standards," said Cassia Patel, Program Director, Oceanic Global Foundation. "The national parks, as shared spaces where all are welcome to enjoy the beauty of our natural world, are a natural ally to pioneer best practices for responsible consumption, and ideally go reusable as well as offer freely available clean drinking water! #ReopenWithReuse."
To learn more about Oceana's campaign to stop plastic pollution, please visit usa.oceana.org/plastics.
Please use this link to share the release: https://bit.ly/3hUYpKV
Oceana is the largest international ocean conservation and advocacy organization. Oceana works to protect and restore the world's oceans through targeted policy campaigns.
“Jeff Bezos is spending $200 billion on AI and robotics. Jeff Bezos is replacing hundreds of thousands of his workers at Amazon with robots. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.”
The Washington Post editorial board went to the trouble of marking what it called "Bernie Sanders' worst idea yet" on Wednesday, but the progressive US senator shrugged at the label and didn't appear likely to end his push for a moratorium on the construction of new artificial intelligence data centers.
The conservative-leaning editors wrote glowingly of the "mind-blowing amounts of information" that AI data centers can process and dismissively said that businesses that have invested billions of dollars in AI have erroneously been cast as the "villain in the socialist imagination."
They decried "AI doomerism" by politicians and accused lawmakers like Sanders (I-Vt.) of "fearmongering" about the data centers' water consumption and environmental harms—but neglected to mention that the rapid expansion of the massive centers has sparked grassroots outrage, with communities in states including Michigan and Wisconsin demanding that tech giants stay out of their towns, fearing skyrocketing electricity bills among other impacts.
Sanders emphasized that the Post and its owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, have a vested interest in dismissing efforts to stop the AI build-out that President Donald Trump has demanded with his executive order aimed at stopping states from regulating the industry.
Bezos, one of the richest people on the planet, created an AI startup last year with $6.2 billion in funding, some of it from his personal fortune, and Amazon—where Bezos is still the primary shareholder—has announced plans to invest $200 billion in AI and robotics.
"What a surprise," said Sanders sardonically. "The Washington Post doesn't want a moratorium on AI data centers."
Ben Inskeep, a program director for Citizens Action Coalition in Indiana, suggested the editorial board couldn't express its opposition to Sanders' proposal for a moratorium without including "an admission that it is a paid attack dog for Jeff Bezos," pointing to its required disclosure that Bezos' company is in fact investing billions of dollars in AI.
On social media, Sanders followed his response to the Post's attack with a video in which he doubled down on his objections to AI, despite the editorial board's accusation that he and others "grandstand" on the issue and its insistence that he should "be ecstatic about how much AI can help workers."
Sanders said in the video that "AI and robotics are a huge threat to the working class of this country."
"We have got to be prepared to say as loud and clear as we can that this technology is not just going to benefit the billionaires who own it," he said, "but it's going to work for the working families of our country."
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms."
A federal judge delivered a scathing ruling against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's effort to punish a Democratic US senator for warning members of the military against following unlawful orders.
US District Judge Richard Leon on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction that at least temporarily blocked Hegseth from punishing Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy captain who was one of several Democratic lawmakers to take part in a video that advised military service members that they had a duty to disobey President Donald Trump if he gave them unlawful orders.
In his ruling, Leon eviscerated Hegseth's efforts to reduce Kelly's retirement rank and pay simply for exercising his First Amendment rights.
While Leon acknowledged that active US service members do have certain restrictions on their freedom of speech, he said that these restrictions have never been applied to retired members of the US armed services.
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees," wrote Leon. "To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their government, and our constitution demands they receive it!"
The judge said he would be granting Kelly's request for an injunction because claims that his First Amendment rights were being violated were "likely to succeed on the merits," further noting that the senator has shown "irreparable harm" being done by Hegseth's efforts to censure him.
Leon concluded his ruling by imploring Hegseth to stop "trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members," and instead "reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our nation over the past 250 years."
Shortly after Leon's ruling, Kelly posted a video on social media in which he highlighted the threats posed by the Trump administration's efforts to silence dissent.
"Today, a federal court made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said," Kelly remarked. "But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That's why I couldn't let this stand."
Kelly went on to accuse the Trump administration of "cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of everyone they can."
Today a federal court made clear Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.
This is a critical moment to show this administration they can't keep undermining Americans' rights.
I also know this might not be over yet, because Trump… pic.twitter.com/9dRe9pmeCd
— Senator Mark Kelly (@SenMarkKelly) February 12, 2026
Leon's ruling came less than two days after it was reported that Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host who is now serving as US attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to get Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers criminally indicted on undisclosed charges before getting rejected by a DC grand jury.
According to a Wednesday report from NBC News, none of the grand jurors who heard evidence against the Democrats believed prosecutors had done enough to establish probable cause that the Democrats had committed a crime, leading to a rare unanimous rejection of an attempted federal prosecution.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, has said that videotaping officers on the job is a form of "doxing" and "violence."
The US Department of Homeland Security has claimed for months that filming immigration agents on the job constitutes a criminal offense. But under oath during a Senate Homeland Security Committee oversight hearing on Thursday, the leaders of immigration agencies under the department’s umbrella admitted this is not true.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the chair of the committee, interrogated Todd Lyons, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Rodney Scott, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP); and Joseph Edlow, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) about the recent surge of agents in Minnesota, which has resulted in the killing of two US citizens since January.
He zeroed in on the case of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse who was shot by a pair of immigration agents on January 24, showing footage of the incident leading up to Pretti's killing, which DHS claimed was justified prior to any investigation taking place.
"So what we see is the beginning of the encounter with Alexander Pretti. He's filming in the middle of the street," Paul explained after rolling the tape.
The senator then asked Scott and Lyons, "Is filming of ICE or Border Patrol either an assault or a crime in any way?"
They both responded flatly, "No."
Courts have generally affirmed that filming law enforcement agents is protected by the First Amendment. But this admission by Lyons and Scott is a major deviation from what their parent agency has claimed.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, stated during a July press briefing that “violence” against DHS agents includes “doxing them” and “videotaping them where they’re at when they’re out on operations.”
Even in the wake of last month's shootings, DHS has held to this line, with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin claiming that “videoing our officers in an effort to dox them and reveal their identities is a federal crime and a felony.”
Agents have been directed to treat those who film ICE as criminals—a DHS bulletin from June described filming at protests as "unlawful civil unrest" tactics and "threats."
Several videos out of Minnesota, Maine, and other places flooded by ICE have documented federal agents telling bystanders to stop recording and issuing threats against them or detaining them.
In one case, a bystander was told that because she was filming, she was going to be put in a "nice little database" and was now "considered a domestic terrorist."
Last month, a federal judge sided with a group of journalists in California who cited the June bulletin to argue that Noem had "established, sanctioned, and ratified an agency policy of treating video recording of DHS agents in public as a threat that may be responded to with force and addressed as a crime," in violation of the First Amendment.