

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.

Dustin Cranor, dcranor@oceana.org, 954.348.
Ashley Blacow-Draeger, ablacow@oceana.org, 831.224.7484
Oceana released a new analysis today identifying some of the most endangered and vulnerable species at-risk from the devastating oil spill taking place off the coast of Huntington Beach, Calif. As part of its assessment, Oceana mapped the locations of ecologically diverse and economically valuable ocean resources most susceptible to oil contamination, which it says is critical to understanding potential implications and informing resource damage assessments.
"Toxic oil spills don't discriminate in polluting ocean ecosystems. From the seafloor to the ocean's surface, the waters off Southern California contain some of the most endangered species and fragile habitats on the West Coast," said Geoff Shester, California campaign director and senior scientist at Oceana. "While the extent of the damage to oiled habitats and wildlife, and the economic implications of closed fisheries are still unfolding, we hope that this analysis will help inform response efforts and that it will be considered when ensuring the responsible party is held fully liable for damages that could have been prevented. Wildlife and coastal economies cannot continue to be jeopardized by dangerous offshore drilling. It's past time to permanently protect our coast from offshore drilling."
Oceana's analysis finds the following at-risk resources near the oil spill area:
* Commercial Fisheries: In 2020, the value of commercial fishing landings in the Los Angeles and San Diego fishing ports totaled $27.2 million. The full value of commercial fishery operations to coastal economies when factoring in employment, processing, and seafood products is several times greater. The most important commercial fisheries in the region include market squid, tunas, swordfish, spiny lobster, spot prawn, and red sea urchin.
* Cold-Water Coral Gardens: Deep-water corals are not only spectacularly colorful but also provide key nursery grounds for recreational and commercial fish species. When oil sinks to the seafloor, it can smother and kill corals. There are at least 15 different types of coral off the coast of Southern California that could be impacted.
* Blue Whale Feeding Areas: Once numbering in the hundreds of thousands, fewer than 1,500 blue whales remain in the Endangered Eastern North Pacific population. This population uses the waters off Southern California as a primary feeding ground. Endangered blue whales travel hundreds of miles from Costa Rica to this area through November to feed on krill -- tiny shrimp-like animals. Oil spills can cause massive die-offs of krill, threatening the main food source for blue whales and exposing the whales to toxic chemicals.
* Gray Whale Migration Route: Gray whales will soon traverse these waters during their annual southern migration to their nurseries off Baja, Calif., with an expected arrival off Southern California in December. From 2019-2021, approximately 500 gray whales became stranded throughout their migration route from Mexico to the Arctic Ocean as the direct result of climate change and this oil spill may exacerbate these impacts.
* Rocky Reefs and Kelp Forests: These habitats are federally designated "habitat areas of particular concern" because of their sensitivity, rarity, and ecological importance for a diversity of Southern California fish and invertebrates. This oil spill could smother the kelp forests, preventing photosynthesis, thus leading to die-offs of this critical habitat.
* Important Bird Air: The National Audubon Society designated these waters as an important bird area for elegant terns, a species considered to be vulnerable because its nesting is restricted to very few sites. This spill could wipe out one of their only remaining nesting sites left in the world and impact their adjacent feeding areas.
* Coastal Wetlands: This area is the most extensive network of remaining coastal wetlands in Southern California, globally important for biodiversity as well as many seabird species like brown pelicans, black skimmers, least terns, and elegant terns. Once inundated with oil, it is impossible to fully remove oil from these wetlands, which are critical stops along the Pacific Flyway for dozens of species of migratory birds.
* Marine Reserves and Conservation Areas: The spill could decimate some of the most pristine habitats off the coast that were protected through an extensive public process over the last decade as state marine reserves and conservation areas: The Laguna Beach State Marine Reserve as well as six state marine conservation areas -- Bolsa Bay, Bolsa Chica Basin, Upper Newport Bay, Crystal Cove, Laguna Beach, and Dana Point -- protect unique marshes and wetlands as well as kelp forests, rocky reefs, and sensitive intertidal areas.
Oceana is calling on Congress to permanently protect the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf Coast of Florida from offshore drilling as part of the Build Back Better Act. A recent Oceana analysis found that ending new leasing off the coast of California would safeguard California's clean coast economy, which collectively supports around 654,000 jobs and over $50 billion in GDP. Nationwide, the U.S. clean coast economy supports around 3.3 million American jobs and $250 billion in GDP.
Oceana's analysis also found that ending new leasing for offshore oil and gas in the United States could prevent over 19 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions as well as more than $720 billion in damages to people, property, and the environment nationally.
"We need the federal government to stop selling off our oceans for offshore drilling and Congress can make sure that happen in the Build Back Better Act, which is currently being negotiated," said Diane Hoskins, campaign director at Oceana. "We know that oil is toxic. We know we shouldn't eat it, breathe it, or swim in it. But for marine wildlife, that's not an option when oil spills occur. This disaster is in part due to decisions made more than 30 years ago. It's time to permanently protect our oceans from any more offshore oil and gas leasing."
As of today, opposition and concern over offshore drilling activities includes:
* Every East and West Coast governor, including Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, California, Oregon, and Washington
* More than 390 local municipalities
* Over 2,300 local, state, and federal bipartisan officials
* East and West Coast alliances representing over 56,000 businesses
* Pacific, New England, South Atlantic, and Mid-Atlantic fishery management councils
* More than 120 scientists
* More than 80 former military leaders
* Commercial and recreational fishing interests such as Southeastern Fisheries Association, Snook and Gamefish Foundation, Fisheries Survival Fund, Billfish Foundation, and International Game Fish Association
* California Coastal Commission, California Fish and Game Commission, and California State Lands Commission
* Department of Defense, NASA, U.S. Air Force, and Florida Defense Support Task Force
For more information about Oceana's efforts to stop the expansion of offshore drilling, please click here.
Oceana is the largest international ocean conservation and advocacy organization. Oceana works to protect and restore the world's oceans through targeted policy campaigns.
Trump now faces a choice: Ending the war or giving Israel what it wants.
President Donald Trump is facing a choice: Ending the war with Iran, which is tanking his popularity and the economy, or continuing his deference to Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made it clear on Tuesday that he cannot have both.
Following assertions from Israeli leaders that it would not end its occupation of Lebanon, Araghchi reiterated that the memorandum of understanding signed virtually by the US and Iran required in no uncertain terms that "war will be ending everywhere, on all fronts, including Lebanon."
"Due to the relations between war in Lebanon and the aggression of Israel on south Lebanon and the war on Iran, these two fronts—Iran and Lebanon—are quite connected to each other," he said.
“End of the war will be the end of the occupation,” he continued. “And without retreating and withdrawing from the Lebanese occupied territories, then there will not be an end to the war.”
"So any military attack from the Zionist entity against Lebanon will never be accepted," he said. "The continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories is a violation of the memorandum of understanding."
It was a shot across the bow from Tehran following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion the day before that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon "for as long as necessary” regardless of any US-Iran agreement.
“We established deep security zones around the state of Israel," he said, referring to the roughly 230 square mile occupation area where Israel has forcibly expelled more than 1 million Lebanese civilians and systematically demolished dozens of villages. "I want to make it clear: We will remain in these security zones… to protect our country.”
Other ministers were even blunter. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said flatly that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign country.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz said the occupation would go on “without any time limit" while villages would continue to be “cleared of local residents.” He said there would be no withdrawal "despite all the existing pressures" from the US, adding that, "we are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the state of Israel."
Trump has regularly deferred to Israel's preferences and sided with Netanyahu as he's derailed previous ceasefire talks. But during a news conference at the Group of Seven summit in France on Tuesday, Trump took a noticeably different tone with his obstinate ally.
Trump: "Without me, there would be no Israel ... I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon ... I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and Hezbollah." pic.twitter.com/xvLlEhYqWj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump criticizes Netanyahu and Israel: "Israel has been fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because too be… pic.twitter.com/NAmqoNkhpj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
The president said he "didn't like" the attack Netanyahu launched against the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday, where Israeli forces bombed a five-story apartment building, killing three people. "I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went," he said, describing the attack as "vicious" and "too much."
"You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody," he said, making perhaps his most forceful criticism ever of Israel's rampant attacks on civilian infrastructure. He continued that "if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, Syria should do the job" of fighting Hezbollah.
"Without the United States, there would be no Israel," he went on. "Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did."
Referring to Netanyahu, he said, "I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon," adding that the ongoing invasion "throws a negative light on the big deal, and that's the deal with Iran."
Commentators noted this is hardly the first time a US president has vented their anger with Netanyahu, only for nothing to materially change.
Noting Trump's previous description of Netanyahu as a "very difficult guy" after he attempted to blow up ceasefire talks on Sunday, Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "The question is: why does Trump facilitate this obstruction by continuing to provide Israel with arms and military aid?"
Zeteo News editor Mehdi Hasan said: “Such is the madly erratic nature of Trump, that he can go from sounding like the most hawkish, pro-Israel president one day, to the most dovish, anti-Israel president the next day. Which is why listening to Trump is pointless; what matters is paying attention to what he does.”
Trump's comments served as an admission, said one observer, that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
President Donald Trump and his top advisers have spent months insisting that extracting and confiscating highly enriched uranium from Iran was the top objective of the unprovoked war he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began in February—but on Tuesday at the Group of Seven summit in France, he shrugged off the need to rapidly obtain the nuclear reactor component.
There is "no rush" to retrieve uranium from nuclear sites the US bombed in June 2025, Trump said, adding that taking the highly enriched uranium is something the US wants "psychologically," but not enough to prioritize extracting it right away.
One could make the argument, he said, that it wasn't worth the effort to take the material at all.
"Frankly, to go get it—we're going to go get it—but to go get it is a big deal, because they say only China and us have the equipment," said the president. "You could make the case, 'Why do you even bother?' because it's not very valuable, you know. It's probably half a million dollars worth, it's not very valuable stuff."
Trump is backing away from getting Iran's enriched material: "You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff." pic.twitter.com/CgNgnZCaMQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump's comments came a day after he and the Iranian government announced they had reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war. The president told The New York Times that the agreement includes a requirement that Iran will be limited to enriching uranium only to levels that "could never be used by the military."
White House officials, though, told The Washington Post that details of Iran's nuclear program will be subject to negotiations over the next two months. The question of whether talks on the nuclear program could be held separately, after a deal to end the war was reached, had been a major sticking point for the US leading up to the MOU.
Trump brushed off suggestions that the deal to end the war, in which Iran demonstrated its economic might by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and sending energy prices skyrocketing—obtained no guarantees on Iran's nuclear program that hadn't already been secured in 2015 in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was brokered by the Obama administration and which limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump exited the JCPOA during his first term.
Iran will only be able to enrich uranium “for nonmilitary purposes. Forever," said Trump on Monday.
On Fox News on Monday, former National Security Council chief of staff Alex Gray insisted the president had secured a deal that, for the first time, would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Before the US and Israel began attacking Iran in February, the Middle Eastern country maintained that its nuclear power program was not for military purposes.
While Trump's supporters insisted the war and the MOU had made clear Trump had drawn a hard line on Iran's nuclear capacity, his comments on Tuesday were taken by foreign policy analyst Logan McMillen as an admission that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
"The real purpose was to punish Iran for the crime of being an independent economic power that refused to participate in America’s petro economy," said McMillen.
At CNN, Aaron Blake noted that Trump has spent weeks sending inconsistent messages about his demand that Iran end its nuclear program.
Late last month, the president said on social media that Iran's uranium "will be unearthed by the United States... in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
But in April, Trump told Reuters that US strikes last year had left Iran's uranium "so far underground, I don’t care about that."
Two weeks later, he again said that the US had "to take that nuclear dust," before telling Fox News last month that destroying the uranium was not "necessary except from a public relations standpoint."
A group of Democratic lawmakers pushed President Donald Trump on whether he would veto legislation that cuts Social Security.
A group of Democratic US senators warned Monday that congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump could be gearing up for a push for raise the retirement age as part of a broader—and deeply unpopular—effort to slash Social Security benefits after the 2026 midterm elections.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote in a letter to Trump that they have "renewed concerns" that his administration is "considering raising the retirement age, cutting the earned benefits of millions of Americans," despite the president's repeated vows to shield the program.
"Republicans have a history of attempting to increase the retirement age, privatize Social Security, or otherwise cut Social Security benefits, and some congressional Republicans have called to raise the retirement age or means-test benefits," the lawmakers wrote, emphasizing that GOP lawmakers "are not alone."
"In an interview this past fall, [Social Security Administration] Commissioner Frank Bisignano said—and later attempted to retract after public outcry—that your administration was considering this idea," the Democratic senators wrote of raising the retirement age, which would cut Social Security benefits across the board.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of a 2024 Republican proposal to raise Social Security's full retirement age found that doing so would cut benefits by an average of 13% for people born after 1971.
The Democratic senators sent their letter to Trump days after Social Security's trustees said in their annual report that the program will be unable to pay out full benefits by the end of 2032—a quarter earlier than projected last year—unless Congress takes action. The finding was seen as evidence of the damage inflicted by Trump's policies, including his tariffs and tax cuts for the rich.
Ahead of the trustees report's release, House Speaker Mike Johnson declared that Social Security needs to be "adjusted and fixed" and said Republicans would release their plan "next year," without specifying what the proposal would entail.
Mike Johnson admits Republicans will cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security next year pic.twitter.com/bgyAb4ppyw
— FactPost (@factpostnews) June 8, 2026
In their letter to Trump on Monday, the trio of Democratic senators demanded to know if the president is aware of "Republican plans to cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits" and whether he would veto GOP legislation that slashes those programs.
"Raising the retirement age—or otherwise cutting benefits—only worsens the looming retirement income crisis," the lawmakers wrote. "Doing so hurts older Americans, cutting monthly benefits and forcing millions into poverty."