

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.

Deborah Moskowitz, Resource Renewal Institute, dmoskowitz@rri.org
Three conservation groups today filed a federal lawsuit challenging the National Park Service's controversial management plan for expanding private agriculture at California's Point Reyes National Seashore, one of a handful of national parks that p
Three conservation groups today filed a federal lawsuit challenging the National Park Service's controversial management plan for expanding private agriculture at California's Point Reyes National Seashore, one of a handful of national parks that permits cattle grazing.
The Park Service plan paves the way for 20-year leases for beef and dairy ranchers in the park, enshrining and expanding commercial ranching on public lands at the expense of native wildlife and natural habitats. The plan would also allow harmful water pollution to continue, and permit the agency to kill native tule elk -- a unique subspecies found in no other national park -- that ranchers say interfere with cattle operations.
"This plan is a giveaway to the cattle industry," said Deborah Moskowitz, president of the Resource Renewal Institute. "It perpetuates decades of negligence by the very agency charged with protecting this national treasure. The Trump administration fast-tracked the plan without regard for the climate crisis or the hundred rare, threatened and endangered species that depend on this national park. One-third of the national seashore is fenced off from public use."
"The Park Service has long mismanaged Point Reyes by allowing ranchers to use and abuse the park for private profit," said Jeff Miller with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Now the agency wants to treat our beloved tule elk as expendable problem animals to be shot or removed. Point Reyes belongs to the public, not a handful of ranchers. It's time to manage the park the way Congress intended when it passed the Point Reyes Act -- for public benefit and protection of the natural environment."
"The Park Service needs to stop authorizing chronic water contamination, harassment and suppression of Tule elk, degradation of public recreation and destruction of native coastal prairies for the sake of a handful of unsustainable ranching operations," said Laura Cunningham, California director at Western Watersheds Project. "Having studied California's native grasslands for decades, I'm shocked at the destruction of native ecosystems and the epidemic of invasive weeds at the Point Reyes Seashore, and the agency's callous disregard of its mandate to protect and preserve the park's ecosystems and wildlife for the use and enjoyment of the people."
"The Park Service is unlawfully prioritizing the commercial needs of ranchers over the natural environment and the public's use and enjoyment of these majestic public lands," said Lizzy Potter, a staff attorney at Advocates for the West, which represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "The Park Service decided that ranching should continue in perpetuity without fully disclosing its plans or the environmental consequences."
The plan violates several federal environmental laws, including the Point Reyes Act, which established the Point Reyes National Seashore in 1962 for the purposes of "public recreation, benefit and inspiration;" the Organic Act, which requires the agency to leave natural resources "unimpaired" for the benefit of future generations; and the Clean Water Act by allowing ranches to circumvent water quality standards. The Park Service's inadequate environmental review for the plan violates the National Environmental Policy Act.
The plaintiffs -- the Resource Renewal Institute, Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds Project -- first sued the Park Service in 2016 for failing to update its antiquated General Management Plan and perpetuating commercial ranching in the park without adequate environmental review and public comment.
A settlement agreement required the Park Service to produce the first-ever Environmental Impact Statement for Point Reyes ranching. More than 90% of public comments opposed ranching and killing native tule elk. The Park Service adopted the plan in September 2021, ignoring tens of thousands of public comments and coalition letters from more than 100 environmental and social justice organizations representing millions of members calling on the agency to phase out ranching.
Background
For decades the National Park Service has leased about 28,000 acres of public lands within the Point Reyes National Seashore and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area for beef and dairy ranching, despite significant conflicts with natural resources, wildlife and public recreation. Ranching has led to overgrazing, soil erosion, degraded water quality, damaged vegetation and endangered species habitats, increased levels of invasive weeds and suppressed wildlife populations at these parks.
The plan expands the public lands zoned for ranching; quadruples the potential terms of existing grazing leases from five years to a maximum of 20 years; allows ranchers to pursue new commercial activities such as mobile slaughterhouses and row crop production; and provides for ranching to continue in perpetuity. The plan perpetuates overgrazing and does little to restore public lands and resources harmed by ongoing commercial cattle operations in the national park.
It also allows the Park Service to shoot native tule elk to appease ranchers and to harass elk away from leased ranch lands. It sets an arbitrary population cap of 140 elk for the Drakes Beach herd, currently estimated at 138 elk. The Park Service can also kill any free-roaming elk to prevent new herds from forming in the park.
Some 91.4% of public comments submitted on the plan opposed ranching on the Point Reyes National Seashore, while only 2.3 percent approved of allowing cattle ranching to continue.
The Park Service improperly rejected a "no ranching" alternative that would provide maximum protection for the environment -- as required under the Point Reyes Act -- along with reduced-ranching alternatives that would provide greater protection than the adopted plan.
The Park Service also refused to consider whether private ranching operations in the park damage Coast Miwok archeological sites. The Park Service discarded a proposal to protect those sites in 2015 and instead adopted a plan that protects "historic" ranches. The Coast Miwok Tribal Council, lineal descendants of the original inhabitants of Point Reyes, formally objected to the Point Reyes ranching and elk-killing plan.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California. The attorneys for the plaintiffs are Lizzy Potter, Laird Lucas and Andrew Missel with the nonprofit, public-interest, environmental law firm Advocates for the West, and Michael Lozeau, of Lozeau Drury LLP.
Western Watersheds Project is an environmental conservation group working to protect and restore watersheds and wildlife through.
"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."
A spokesperson for the newspaper said that Friday's ruling "reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf," adding that "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."
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.
“With global humanitarian needs already at record levels, further escalation of the conflict in the Middle East and wider region will have grave ramifications for crises across the world,” said one advocate.
The US-Israeli war against Iran has unleashed a "triple emergency" that is draining the global humanitarian aid system of resources and putting millions of the world's most vulnerable people at even greater risk, according to a dire warning issued Friday by the International Rescue Committee.
The war has already resulted in the deaths of thousands and the displacement of millions of people in Iran and Lebanon. But the IRC says that the ripple effects of the war are beginning to spread to conflict zones across the world.
The conflict has caused many nations in the region to partially or fully close their airspace, leaving critical cargo stranded.
Meanwhile, Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for US and Israeli attacks has disrupted the flow of more than 20% of the world’s oil exports, sharply raising transport costs and straining budgets that could go toward lifesaving aid.
“Medical aid is highly dependent on international transport,” said Willem Zuidema, Save the Children’s global supply chain director. “The blockage in the Strait of Hormuz, combined with spiking cost for insurance and fuel, is directly impacting patients in our health facilities, at the worst time possible.”
IRC said $130,000 worth of pharmaceutical aid intended for its humanitarian response to the conflict in Sudan has been left stranded in Dubai due to the strait's closure.
According to Save the Children, this delay has put 90 primary healthcare facilities across Sudan at risk of running low on supplies.
More than 400,000 children, the group estimated, could be affected by the inability to receive antibiotics, antimalarial drugs, pain and fever medications, and other treatments.
The group said it has been forced to deliver the aid using the much more costly method of transporting it across Jeddah, where it will be carried by sea freight to Sudan, which the group said could add as much as $1,000-2,000 per container.
The same is true of humanitarian zones in Afghanistan and Yemen, where treatments for thousands of children must now be delivered by air or by land, dramatically raising the costs.
The closure of the strait has also forced many vessels carrying aid to find alternative routes. IRC said its shipping partners have been forced to reroute their operations to instead travel around Africa's Cape of Good Hope, adding up to a month for ocean freight deliveries to war zones on the continent.
"What we are seeing is the war in Iran unleashing a triple emergency," said David Milliband, the president and CEO of IRC.
"First, a surge in humanitarian need, with Lebanon now the most visible humanitarian scar and one of the fastest-growing displacement crises in the world, with over one million people forced from their homes in weeks," he said.
"Second, a global economic shock, as disruptions to food, fuel, and fertilizer markets, putting up to 30% of fertilizer trade at risk, threatens more than 300 million people already facing acute food insecurity," said Milliband, and "third, a system under strain, with more than 60 conflicts stretching diplomatic attention and funding to a breaking point, pushing crises like Sudan and Gaza further down the list of priorities."
Milliband marveled at the priorities of the powers prosecuting the war. He pointed to a recent estimate from the Pentagon that the first six days of the war alone cost $11.3 billion, noting that "just $4 billion is enough to pay for treatment for every acutely malnourished child in the world."
Zuidema said that the "grave ripple effects" caused by the war are exacerbated by the fact that "governments are cutting vital foreign aid budgets."
He called on all parties to the war to cease hostilities and to adhere to their obligations under international law, including allowing the free flow of humanitarian aid.
“There should be no barriers to lifesaving supplies: Exemptions should be put in place to allow humanitarian supplies, fertilizer, and food to be able to move through the Strait of Hormuz,” Zuidema said. “With global humanitarian needs already at record levels, further escalation of the conflict in the Middle East and wider region will have grave ramifications for crises across the world.”