

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.

Amy van Saun, avansaun@centerforfoodsafety.
Today, Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) from continuing the excessive expansion of industrial shellfish operations without considering the cumulative impacts to Washington's rich and diverse coastal waters. Industrial shellfish operations adversely affect Washington's shorelines and estuaries by destroying critical habitat for numerous species, including endangered and threatened salmon and killer whales. These operations harm Washington's aquatic and nearshore areas by increasing plastic netting and debris, microplastics, pesticides, and disturbances in the environment.
"Despite clear statutory mandates and a previous court decision requiring the government to fully consider the potential impacts of proposed shellfish operations, the Corps continues to ignore its duties by allowing industrial shellfish operations to degrade important aquatic habitats, including through the use of plastics and pesticides, endangering Washington's shorelines, biodiversity, and surrounding communities," said Amy van Saun, senior attorney at CFS.
In the complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, plaintiffs argue that the nationwide permit (NWP 48 of 2021) authorizing commercial shellfish operations in Washington violates several federal environmental protection laws, including the Clean Water Act (CWA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act, and Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint also challenges the Corps' unlawful use of "Letters of Permission" (LOP) to approve industrial shellfish operations without public notice or comment and without considering their overall cumulative impacts.
The new lawsuit comes on the heels of a previous lawsuit against the Corps, where CFS and allies successfully sued the Trump administration for issuing a similar nationwide permit (NWP 48 of 2017). The court found the previous 2017 permit unlawful under CWA and NEPA, stating that the Corps had failed to adequately consider the impacts on Washington's shorelines and wildlife habitat, including the cumulative effects of expanding or continuing operations in sensitive areas. In a victory for plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the lower court's decision.
In January 2021, during the last few days of the Trump administration, the Corps finalized the new nationwide permit for commercial shellfish aquaculture activities. In rushing to issue the permit, the Corps ignored comments from plaintiffs and stakeholders urging the agency to fix problems with its impact analysis before issuing the new permit. For example, neither the 2017 permit nor the 2021 reissuance include any restrictions on pesticide or plastic use. Much like the unlawful 2017 permit, the 2021 permit authorizes commercial shellfish aquaculture activities in Washington without full consideration of the potential adverse effects to aquatic ecosystems and wildlife, prompting CFS and allies to launch another lawsuit to vacate the permit.
"The Coalition is outraged that the Corps would try to avoid doing what is necessary as a bare minimum under the law to protect orcas, salmon, and marine life in Washington from the toxic and physical impacts of the massive number of industrial-scale aquaculture operations that have been proposed," said Laura Hendricks, director of the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat. "This is precisely the sort of agency action that gives 'government' a bad name."
The Corps has already relied on the 2021 NWP 48 to approve thousands of acres of industrial shellfish activities in Washington's coastal areas, and the LOPs to approve thousands more without public input. Many of the acres authorized for shellfish aquaculture are located near critical spawning, breeding, and feeding habitats for forage fish, threatened and endangered species of salmon and green sturgeon, birds, whales, and other wildlife species. Additionally, operations authorized under the new permit destroy eelgrass and other aquatic plants that provide habitat to wildlife and other essential ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, sediment stabilization, and nutrient balancing, which help mitigate the effects of climate change.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are CFS and Coalition to Protect Puget Sound. CFS is represented by counsel from CFS and Coalition to Protect Puget Sound is represented by the Law Office of Karl G. Anuta and Law Office of Mike Sargetakis.
Center for Food Safety's mission is to empower people, support farmers, and protect the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture. Through groundbreaking legal, scientific, and grassroots action, we protect and promote your right to safe food and the environment. CFS's successful legal cases collectively represent a landmark body of case law on food and agricultural issues.
(202) 547-9359"Providers are stretched thin, doing everything they can as resources disappear and the system buckles under the pressure of Republicans cutting more than $1 trillion from healthcare."
An advocacy group tracking the impacts of the unprecedented Medicaid cuts that congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump enacted last year said Monday that at least 900 hospitals, nursing homes, and other healthcare facilities are now shutting down or at risk of closure—a disaster for low-income Americans who lack easy access to care.
Protect Our Care's Hospital Crisis Watch project has identified healthcare centers that have closed or are at risk of closing, cutting services, and shutting down wards as they grapple with the impacts of the GOP's 2025 budget law, which included over $1 trillion in total healthcare cuts over the next decade. More than $900 billion of the cuts will come from Medicaid, which pays hospitals and other providers for services delivered to low-income patients.
"Hospital Crisis Watch has now reached 900 pins, 900 communities where access to care is evaporating as Republicans’ healthcare cuts ripple across the country,” said Brad Woodhouse, president of Protect Our Care. “Providers are stretched thin, doing everything they can as resources disappear and the system buckles under the pressure of Republicans cutting more than $1 trillion from health care to fund tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations."
"Families are driving further for care, parents are scrambling to find services for their kids, and seniors are being left without the support they need," Woodhouse continued. "Care is getting harder to access, in too many places, disappearing entirely, and communities are left to deal with the consequences."
The impacts of the Trump-GOP Medicaid cuts have been felt in both urban and rural areas, despite Republicans' inclusion of a $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Fund that supporters touted as a way to bolster at-risk healthcare facilities. Critics of the fund have warned from the start that it would not be nearly enough to offset the devastation caused by massive Medicaid cuts. (The Trump-GOP law includes an estimated $137 billion in cuts to Medicaid in rural areas.)
"In Nebraska and other states, rural hospitals are facing across-the-board cuts—and the rural health fund Congress created to offset the impact of Medicaid cuts on rural healthcare is falling short," Adam Searing, an associate professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy’s Center for Children and Families, wrote in a blog post last week.
"What is quickly becoming clear, even at this early stage, is that as a result of the cuts enacted by Congress, healthcare is going to become much harder to access for many people," wrote Searing. "Rural areas and small towns across the country will be particularly affected."
The latest assessments of surging healthcare facility cuts and closures across the US came as Nebraska became the first state to implement the punitive work requirements that the 2025 Republican law imposes on some Medicaid recipients. Early estimates indicate that more than 20,000 Nebraskans could lose Medicaid coverage due to the stringent work requirements and the procedural hurdles the new mandates entail.
States must implement the new work requirements by the start of 2027.
"Everyone who is eligible for Medicaid will be at risk of having their health coverage taken away—whether or not the work requirement applies to them, and whether or not they prove their compliance or exemption status if it does—because the administrative burden of implementing the work requirement strains a state’s entire Medicaid system," Farah Erzouki, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, warned last week.
"Without sufficient time and guidance," Erzouki added, "states will be unable to implement these requirements without harming many more eligible people and millions will lose coverage."
"Using taxpayer dollars to toady to a wannabe-dictator is both pandering and pathetic," said one critic.
Even though President Donald Trump has long insisted that his proposed White House luxury ballroom would be funded by private donations, congressional Republicans unveiled legislation on Monday that would put US taxpayers on the hook for the project.
As reported by Punchbowl News, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) released a proposal for a budget reconciliation package that includes $30 billion more in funds for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $3.4 billion for Customs and Border Protection, and $2.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security.
Tucked into the proposal is $1 billion for what is described as an "East Wing modernization project, including above-ground and below-ground security features."
Given that Trump is planning to build his ballroom on the area of the White House's East Wing that he demolished last year, this means that $1 billion in taxpayer money would be going to the president's vanity project.
Democratic officials immediately pounced on news that their Republican counterparts are planning to funnel $1 billion to the ballroom project, noting that the budget plan comes as Americans are struggling with the surging costs of energy and food.
"Zero dollars to lower costs," wrote Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee. "Zero dollars to protect your healthcare. A massive check for an out-of-control ICE, and $1 billion for Trump’s ballroom. This Republican budget bill is a disaster."
Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) responded to the GOP ballroom plan by declaring, "Oh hell no."
"Spiking prices, SCOTUS attacking democracy, collapsing faith in the US government," Casten added, "and the GOP is prioritizing sending more money to murderous ICE agents and Trump's ballroom vanity project. This is offensive."
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) contrasted the GOP finding money to fund the ballroom with its unwillingness to extend enhanced subsidies for Americans who buy health insurance through exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act.
"Add the ballroom to the laundry list of things Trump said someone else would pay for," Ansari wrote. "Ultimately, of course, it’s always the American people footing the bill for his outrageous pet projects. A $1BN price tag while he rips away your healthcare. Sickening."
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) welcomed the chance to have his Republican colleagues go on the record in favor of funding the ballroom.
"Just flagging that now everyone gets an up or down vote on the ballroom!" he wrote.
Elected Democrats weren't the only ones to hammer the GOP for the proposal to fund Trump's ballroom.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, called the GOP plan a "corrupt absurdity" that would make taxpayers shell out $1 billion for the president's "grandiose, bombastic, vanity project."
"Using taxpayer dollars to toady to a wannabe-dictator is both pandering and pathetic," added Gilbert, who decried the plans for increased ICE funding as "abhorrent."
Kristen Crowell, executive director of Families Over Billionaires, denounced the ballroom funding plan as "a glaring symbol of misplaced priorities and grift," while also calling attention to other harmful aspects of the GOP's budget proposal.
"At a time when families are struggling to afford housing, child care, and other basic necessities," Crowell said, "the White House and Republicans in Congress are proposing to pour tens of billions of dollars into an already bloated and unaccountable deportation machine—while also carving out funding for the president’s own luxury projects."
The president and defense secretary "want you to think we haven’t been at war with Iran for over 65 days," said one Democratic congressional candidate.
While assuring reporters that the ceasefire agreement reached last month between the Trump administration and Iran is holding, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday said the American forces are acting "aggressively" in the Strait of Hormuz, where he said US Central Command has "established a powerful red, white, and blue dome" as a "direct gift from the US to the world."
The metaphorical "dome" the US has placed over the key shipping route for oil and other goods has taken the form of what the Trump administration is calling Project Freedom, which launched Monday and involves the US guiding ships out of the strait, according to President Donald Trump. Iran effectively shut the waterway more than two months ago in retaliation for the unprovoked US-Israeli war on the country, and the US Navy has blocked ships from going to or from Iran in response.
Hegseth emphasized Tuesday that Project Freedom is "separate and distinct" from the military assault on Iran that began on February 28 with the stated aim of eliminating the country's missile and nuclear capabilities.
"The ceasefire is not over," said the secretary. "We expected there would be some churn, which happened, and we said we would defend and defend aggressively, and we absolutely have."
He added that the US is "not looking for a fight."
Independent journalist Rachel Blevins responded sardonically: "'We are not looking for a fight'—we just murdered your leader, your schoolchildren, and your civilians, we bombed your infrastructure, and we've been trying to strangle your economy with sanctions for years."
Adm. Brad Cooper, the head of US Central Command, told reporters that US warships shot down Iranian cruise missiles that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had fired at the vessels Navy ships were guiding out of the strait on Monday, and Army helicopter gunships sank six military speedboats from Iran.
As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander told Iran's state-affiliated media that US forces actually attacked "two small boats carrying people on their way from Khasab on the coast of Oman to the coast of Iran on Monday" and killed five civilians, but did not hit any IRGC ships.
At his press conference with Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hegseth insisted that Iran is the "aggressor" even as he threatened the country with restarting "major combat operations" if Trump deems them "necessary."
Project Freedom, said Hegseth, "is about free flow of commerce, all the things that happened before, and only Iran is contesting, so right now the ceasefire certainly holds, but we're going to be watching very, very closely."
One reporter with the Epoch Times asked whether the president plans to seek congressional approval if he decides it is necessary to restart "major combat operations."
Days before the fighting in the strait, Trump notified Congress last Friday that hostilities with Iran had been terminated. The announcement came on the deadline set by the 1973 War Powers Act, which requires US presidents to end conflicts that have not been authorized by Congress no more than 60 days after notifying lawmakers of the hostilities.
Trump told Congress that the fighting has been effectively terminated since the US and Iran agreed to the ceasefire on April 7, a view that Hegseth pushed on Tuesday in response to the question about congressional authorization.
"Our view is... that ultimately with the ceasefire, the clock stops," said Hegseth. "If it were to restart that would be the president's decision. That option is always there and Iran knows that."
Q: Will this administration be seeking congressional approval for any further military operations if the ceasefire breaks down?
Hegseth: Our view is with the ceasefire, the clock stops. If it were to restart, that would be the president's decision. That option is always there.… pic.twitter.com/cz3bIpLeIC
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 5, 2026
NBC News senior national politics reporter Jonathan Allen responded that he had "never heard" of Hegseth and Trump's reasoning for not planning to seek congressional approval for more combat operations.
"Understand that what he is doing here is desperately trying to avoid the War Powers Act," said Fred Wellman, a Democratic congressional candidate in Missouri. "They made up a new interpretation that says the 60-day clock is 'paused' for a ceasefire. Now they are lying and saying this is an all-new, shiny war and not the same one."
He added, "This clown and [the administration's] Republican congressional doormats want you to think we haven’t been at war with Iran for over 65 days."