

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.

Scott Hochberg, shochberg@biologicaldiversity.
The Center for Biological Diversity, CleanAirNow, Sierra Club, and 16 states filed lawsuits in California federal court today challenging the U.S. Postal Service's decision to replace its aging fleet with close to 150,000 gas-burning delivery trucks.
Last year the Postal Service, under the leadership of Trump appointee Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, finalized a contract to replace 165,000 aging postal trucks. It chose Oshkosh Defense, a company with no experience producing electric vehicles, and ordered 90% gas-burning trucks and only 10% electric vehicles.
" Louis DeJoy's gas-guzzling fleet guarantees decades of pollution with every postcard and package, and we're hopeful the court will block it," said Scott Hochberg, an attorney with the Center's Climate Law Institute. "The entire federal government is rushing to electrify, and the Postal Service can't be driving in the opposite direction."
Current postal trucks, which are around 30 years old, get 8.2 miles per gallon. The proposed gas-burning replacements get 14.7 mpg, and only 8.6 mpg with air conditioning.
The lawsuit says the Postal Service sidestepped mandatory environmental reviews that needed to be completed before the agency made a purchasing decision. Instead, the Postal Service released a draft environmental impact statement for its plan six months after it had already signed the contract with Oshkosh, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.
"The purpose of environmental review is to inform the Postal Service's decision, not rubberstamp a plan it had already made," said Hochberg. "Postal delivery trucks visit almost every neighborhood in the United States daily. It's backward and bewildering that the USPS would show such disregard for climate and public health with its decision."
The Postal Service's proposal has received an avalanche of criticism, including from fellow government agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency called the environmental impact statement "seriously deficient" and "inconsistent with the requirements of NEPA." The White House's Council on Environmental Quality noted that USPS "committed to walk down a path before looking to see where that path was leading."
The lawsuit comes as the federal government is working to use its power to curb the climate crisis. President Biden has directed government agencies to acquire only zero-emission vehicles by 2027 and to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 50% by 2030, goals which will be impossible to meet if the Postal Service purchases mostly gas-powered vehicles.
"Postal trucks are a prime opportunity for electrification as most drive short distances and charge at a central location every night," said Hochberg. "Instead of punishing communities with more pollution, USPS can set a strong example for other federal and civilian fleets looking to electrify. With one move the Postal Service can save money in the long run, increase the country's energy independence, and reduce air pollution across the nation. It's a shame we have to ask the courts to make them do it."
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252Despite denials of being involved in the Texas state senate special election, Trump endorsed the losing candidate on three separate occasions over the last three days.
Hours after the Republican Party suffered an upset defeat in a special election in a deep-red district in Texas, President Donald Trump falsely claimed he had nothing to do with the race.
While speaking to reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort on Sunday, Trump was asked what he made of the GOP losing a Texas state senate election in a district that he carried by 17 percentage points in 2024.
"I'm not involved in that, that's a local Texas race," Trump replied.
Reporter: A Democrat won a special election in Texas in an area that you won by 17 points
Trump: I’m not involved in that. That’s a local race. I don’t know anything about it. I had nothing to do with it. pic.twitter.com/MfWU1DZkar
— Acyn (@Acyn) February 1, 2026
In fact, Trump endorsed losing Republican candidate Leigh Wambsganss on three separate occasions in just the last three days, including a Saturday post on Truth Social where he called her "a phenomenal Candidate" and "an incredible supporter of our Movement to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN."
Trump's attempt to distance himself from someone whom he enthusiastically endorsed just one day ago elicited instant ridicule from many of his critics on social media.
"Two days ago, the president used his social media platform to endorse this 'phenomenal candidate' and to urge 'all America First Patriots' in the district to get out and vote for her," remarked Princeton historian Kevin Kruse. "Today, he says he doesn't know anything about it and had nothing to do with it. He's lying or demented or both."
Zak Williams, a political consultant at Zenith Strategies and a native Texan, wrote that Trump was "intimately involved" in the campaign, noting that Republicans outspent Democrats in the race by a margin of 10 to 1.
Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman who left the GOP over his disgust with Trump, expressed astonishment at the president's blatant dishonesty.
"He’s such a horrible person," wrote Walsh. "And such a dishonest person. Yes, he was involved in that race. He endorsed the losing candidate, and she lost 100% because of him. She lost 100% because of this past year of his chaos, his cruelty, and his incompetence. Her loss was a total rejection of him."
Journalist James Barragán of TX Capital Tonight, argued that the Wambsganss loss calls into question just how effective Trump's endorsements will be in moving voters in the 2026 midterm elections.
"President Trump says he’s 'not involved' in SD 9 race where his endorsed candidate (who he boosted multiple times in the runup) lost a +17 Trump district," wrote Barragán. "He’s either not being truthful or it makes you question how much stock people should put into his social media endorsements."
"This was a bribe," said one critic.
A bombshell Saturday report from the Wall Street Journal revealed that a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family secretly backed a massive $500 million investment into the Trump family's cryptocurrency venture months before the Trump administration gave the United Arab Emirates access to highly sensitive artificial intelligence chip technology.
According to the Journal's sources, lieutenants of Abu Dhabi royal Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan signed a deal in early 2025 to buy a 49% stake in World Liberty Financial, the startup founded by members of the Trump family and the family of Trump Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
Documents reviewed by the Journal showed that the buyers in the deal agreed to "pay half up front, steering $187 million to Trump family entities," while "at least $31 million was also slated to flow to entities affiliated with" the Witkoff family.
Weeks after green lighting the investment into the Trump crypto venture, Tahnoon met directly with President Donald Trump and Witkoff in the White House, where he reportedly expressed interest in working with the US on AI-related technology.
Two months after this, the Journal noted, "the administration committed to give the tiny Gulf monarchy access to around 500,000 of the most advanced AI chips a year—enough to build one of the world’s biggest AI data center clusters."
Tahnoon in the past had tried to get US officials to give the UAE access to the chips, but was rebuffed on concerns that the cutting-edge technology could be passed along to top US geopolitical rival China, wrote the Journal.
Many observers expressed shock at the Journal's report, with some critics saying that it showed Trump and his associates were engaging in a criminal bribery scheme.
"This was a bribe," wrote Melanie D’Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, in a social media post. "UAE royals gave the Trump family $500 million, and Trump, in his presidential capacity, gave them access to tightly guarded American AI chips. The most powerful person on the planet, also happens to be the most shamelessly corrupt."
Jesse Eisinger, reporter and editor at ProPublica, argued that the Abu Dhabi investment into the Trump cypto firm "should rank among the greatest US scandals ever."
Democratic strategist David Axelrod also said that the scope of the Trump crypto investment scandal was historic in nature.
"In any other time or presidency, this story... would be an earthquake of a scandal," he wrote. "The size, scope and implications of it are unprecedented and mind-boggling."
Tommy Vietor, co-host of "Pod Save America," struggled to wrap his head around the scale of corruption on display.
"How do you add up the cost of corruption this massive?" he wondered. "It's not just that Trump is selling advanced AI tech to the highest bidder, national security be damned. Its that he's tapped that doofus Steve Witkoff as an international emissary so his son Zach Witkoff can mop up bribes."
Former Rep. Tom Malinkowski (D-NJ) warned the Trump and his associates that they could wind up paying a severe price for their deal with the UAE.
"If a future administration finds that such payments to the Trump family were acts of corruption," he wrote, "these people could be sanctioned under the Global Magnitsky Act, and the assets in the US could potentially be frozen."
In a speech before cheering supporters, Democrat Taylor Rehmet dedicated his victory "to everyday working people."
Democrats scored a major upset on Saturday, as machinist union leader Taylor Rehmet easily defeated Republican opponent Leigh Wambsganss in a state senate special election held in a deep-red district that President Donald Trump carried by 17 percentage points in 2024.
With nearly all votes counted, Rehmet holds a 14-point lead in Texas' Senate District 9, which covers a large portion of Tarrant County.
In a speech before cheering supporters, Rehmet dedicated his victory "to everyday working people" whom he credited with putting his campaign over the top.
This win goes to everyday, working people.
I’ll see you out there! pic.twitter.com/kPWzjn2LhW
— Taylor Rehmet (@TaylorRehmetTX) February 1, 2026
Republican opponent Wambsganss conceded defeat in the race but vowed to win an upcoming rematch in November.
“The dynamics of a special election are fundamentally different from a November general election,” Wambsganss said. “I believe the voters of Senate District 9 and Tarrant County Republicans will answer the call in November.”
Republican Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick reacted somberly to the news of Rehmet's victory, warning in a social media post that the result was "a wake-up call for Republicans across Texas."
"Our voters cannot take anything for granted," Patrick emphasized.
Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico, on the other hand, cheered Rehmet's victory, which he hinted was a sign of things to come in the Lone Star State in the 2026 midterm elections.
"Trump won this district by 17 points," he wrote. "Democrat Taylor Rehmet just flipped it—despite Big Money outspending him 10:1. Something is happening in Texas."
Steven Monacelli, special correspondent for the Texas Observer, described Rehmet's victory as "an earthquake of Biblical proportions."
"Tarrant County is the largest red county in the nation," Monacelli explained. "I cannot emphasize enough how big this is."
Adam Carlson, founding partner of polling firm Zenith Research, noted that Rehmet's victory was truly remarkable given the district's past voting record.
"The recent high water mark for Dems in the district was 43.6% (Beto 2018)," he wrote, referring to Democrat Beto O'Rourke's failed 2018 US Senate campaign. "Rehmet’s likely to exceed 55%. The heavily Latino parts of the district shifted sharply to the left from 2024."
Polling analyst Lakshya Jain said that the big upset in Texas makes more sense when considering recent polling data on voter enthusiasm.
"Our last poll's generic ballot was D+4," he explained. "Among the most enthusiastic voters (a.k.a., those who said they would 'definitely' vote in 2026)? D+12. Foreseeable and horrible for the GOP."
Bud Kennedy, a columnist for the Forth Worth Star-Telegram, argued that Rehmet's victory shows that "Democrats can win almost anywhere in Texas" in 2026.
Kennedy also credited Rehmet with having "the perfect résumé for a District 9 Democrat" as "a Lockheed Martin leader running against a Republican who had lost suburban public school voters, particularly in staunch-red Republican north Fort Worth."