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.

Perry Wheeler, Earthjustice, (202) 792-6211, pwheeler@earthjustice.org
Michael Robinson, Center for Biological Diversity, (575) 313-7017, michaelr@biologicaldiversity.org
Peter Clerkin, Defenders of Wildlife, (202) 390-3719, pclerkin@defenders.org
Conservation groups have filed a lawsuit challenging a new U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) management rule that fails to provide for the recovery of the Mexican gray wolf, one of the most endangered mammals in the United States. The Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife, represented by Earthjustice in the suit, argue that FWS's new rule fails to respond to ongoing genetic threats to Mexican gray wolves, sets an inadequate population target, and cuts wolves off from essential recovery habitat.
"The government's new management program threatens failure for the entire Mexican gray wolf recovery effort," said Timothy Preso, managing attorney for Earthjustice's biodiversity defense program. "Improving genetic diversity and establishing additional populations are critically important for the lobo's survival. Unfortunately, this new rule falls far short of what is needed to restore the Mexican gray wolf."
In its new management rule, FWS sets a target of 320 wolves in a single area of eastern Arizona and western New Mexico and prohibits wolf access to promising but unoccupied recovery habitat in the Grand Canyon and Southern Rockies regions. Scientists have identified establishing additional Mexican gray wolf populations in those regions as essential to eventual recovery. Further, while the new rule calls for the release of enough captive wolves to improve the wild Mexican gray wolf population's genetic diversity, it will consider the population's genetic problems solved if these released wolves merely survive to a certain age, regardless of whether they ever breed.
"We are deeply concerned that FWS continues to disregard the recommendations and concerns of top scientists and the harmful impacts this inaction is having on recovery," said Craig Miller, senior Southwest representative for Defenders of Wildlife. "Mexican wolves, ranchers, and the public would all benefit from the increased coordination that comes with 'essential' status and by allowing wolves back into suitable habitats where there are few opportunities for conflict. Instead, the new rule prevents necessary expansion and confines a single population to an area with much unsuitable habitat and a high likelihood of conflict."
The FWS rule challenged by the conservation groups represents FWS's effort to revise a prior Mexican gray wolf management framework after it was successfully challenged by the same conservationists. In 2015, FWS put forth a management rule for the reintroduced Mexican gray wolf population that threatened to compound many of the issues that threaten the species' survival. Conservation groups won their challenge to this rule in March 2018, as a federal court in Arizona found the rule violated the Endangered Species Act. In its ruling, the Court faulted the agency for ignoring the advice of key scientists upon whose work the agency purported to rely. The court directed FWS to issue a new management rule by July 1, 2022.
"Increasing genetic diversity is key to the recovery of the small Mexican gray wolf population, but the government is stalling," said Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Underlying the federal absence of genetic standards is a determination to keep killing wolves and avoid effective wolf releases, all on behalf of the public lands livestock industry. Our lawsuit will show how the government refused to be candid about the lethal consequences of its mismanagement."
In addition to the management rule, conservation groups are challenging the 2017 recovery plan for Mexican gray wolves in a separate lawsuit that is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That suit argues that the plan fails to provide for "conservation and survival" of the species and does not base its delisting criteria on the best available science, as the law requires. Among other recommendations FWS ignored, leading scientists previously determined that recovery would necessitate three connected subpopulations of Mexican gray wolves in the wild, totaling at least 750 wolves. But following pressure from state officials, the recovery criteria were altered to a single population of 320 wolves, with an additional isolated population in Mexico. The new management rule mirrors this and other shortcomings of the 2017 recovery plan.
Mexican gray wolves are the most distinct lineage of wolves in the Western Hemisphere. This wolf subspecies of the American Southwest and Mexico was driven to near extinction as a result of government-sponsored killing in the mid-20th century. By the end of the killing program, just seven individuals remained in a captive breeding program. The enactment of the Endangered Species Act spurred efforts to recover the Mexican gray wolf from the looming threat of extinction and it was listed as endangered in 1976.
While FWS estimates that there were 196 Mexican gray wolves in the wild at the end of 2021, the population's numbers remain well below recovery objectives and its genetic integrity is badly deteriorated. On average, wolves in the reintroduced population are as related to one another as full siblings.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460"As costs soar from Trump’s illegal war with Iran, any attempt by big corporations to jack up prices is unacceptable," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky.
Democratic lawmakers are warning corporate America to not use President Donald Trump's unconstitutional war with Iran as an excuse to jack up prices on US consumers.
US Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), along with Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), sent a letter on Tuesday to the Federal Trade Commission demanding that it investigate and prosecute any unlawful price gouging by corporations during Trump's war, which has raised the cost of oil, gasoline, fertilizer, and other essential goods.
While the Democrats acknowledged that Trump's war created "broad supply chain disruptions and widespread uncertainty in the global economy," they warned that "big corporations may capitalize on this uncertainty to hike prices more than is warranted by actual input cost increases, price gouging everyday Americans while enriching executives and padding investors’ pockets."
The lawmakers accused big corporations in recent years of using assorted crises—including the global Covid-19 pandemic, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and Trump's massive "Liberation Day" tariffs on foreign goods—to justify hiking prices beyond what could be warranted by input increases caused by external shocks.
The lawmakers also touted the Price Gouging Prevention Act that they introduced in July 2025 that would expand the authority of the FTC and state attorneys general to stop sellers from charging a "grossly excessive price, regardless of where the price gouging occurs in a supply chain or distribution network."
The proposed bill would also require public companies to "clearly disclose costs and pricing strategies" used to justify any price increases during periods of economic disruption.
In a social media post, Schakowsky said that "as costs soar from Trump’s illegal war with Iran, any attempt by big corporations to jack up prices is unacceptable," emphasizing that "we must crack down on price gouging and protect consumers."
The call to stop price gouging comes as concerns are mounting about the major economic damage that Trump's Iran war could produce.
Larry Fink, CEO of hedge fund BlackRock, predicted during an interview with BBC on Wednesday that there would be a "stark and steep recession" throughout the world if the war dragged on and the price of oil hit $150 per barrel, which he said would raise costs on products everywhere.
"Rising energy prices are a very regressive tax," Fink said. "It affects the poor more than the wealthy, because it's a larger component of their pocketbook."
CNBC reported on Wednesday that forecasters have been increasing their odds of a recession in the US economy this year, as the Iran war puts a strain on oil prices at a time when job growth in the country has already ground to a halt.
"Moody’s Analytics’ model has raised its recession outlook for the next 12 months to 48.6%," wrote CNBC. "Goldman Sachs boosted its estimate to 30%. Wilmington Trust has the odds at 45%, while EY Parthenon has it at 40%, with the caveat that 'those odds could rapidly rise in the event of a more prolonged or severe Middle East conflict.'"
“It seems the criminal apartheid state of Israel has grown impatient with slowly torturing, starving, and beating Palestinian hostages to death,” said one observer.
Israeli lawmakers on Tuesday voted to advance a bill legalizing execution by hanging of Palestinians convicted of "terrorism"-related killings, a move that prompted opponents to warn of mass executions under what one prominent human rights group called "apartheid" legislation.
The Knesset National Security Committee voted to send the bill for its final two readings before the Knesset General Assembly, which are expected to take place next week.
Bill sponsor Limor Son Har-Melech of the far-right Jewish Power Party called the bill's advancement a "moral and necessary step."
“The law sets out a clear and unequivocal message: Those who choose to murder Jews because they are Jews lose their right to live,” added Har-Melech.
The bill passed its first reading at the full Knesset last November, drawing widespread condemnation for provisions including mandatory death sentences without judicial discretion or possibility of pardons, to be carried out within 90 days.
Since then, amendments have been proposed to avoid accusations of discrimination amid the filing of around 2,000 proposed revisions by opposition lawmakers. Language under which Jewish Israelis who kill Palestinians are not subjected to the legislation has been softened; however, critics contend that in practice, the bill would apply predominantly to Palestinian perpetrators.
The bill also retains what critics say is a discriminatory two-track legal regime; one for military courts which have jurisdiction over Palestinians—but not Israeli settlers—in the illegally occupied West Bank, and another for civilian courts inside Israel and East Jerusalem, which, like wider West Bank, has been unlawfully occupied by Israel for nearly 59 years.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had reportedly pushed for the changes, which also include allowing judicial discretion in sentencing and removing a requirement for trials to take place in military courts. Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—is said to be wary of more global backlash against a country already facing a genocide case at the International Court of Justice.
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir—who was ordered last week to remove a video promoting the bill, in which he stands by a gallows at a memorial to Jews executed in the 1930s and '40s for resisting British occupation—called Tuesday's vote "a historic moment of justice for the state of Israel."
"No more revolving door of attacks, imprisonments, and releases," he added. "This law restores deterrence, restores justice, and sends a clear and unambiguous message to our enemies: Jewish blood is not cheap. We will continue to lead an uncompromising policy against terror until victory.”
Studies in the United States—the only Western democracy that actively executes people—have repeatedly shown that the death penalty does not deter crime.
Knesset members opposing the legislation—who are believed to be outnumbered by more than 2 to 1—condemned Tuesday's vote.
Rabbi Gilad Kariv, who represents the left-wing Democrats, slammed what he called "an extreme bill that does not exist in any democratic country, with serious moral flaws and profound security recklessness.”
Har-Melech, Ben-Gvir, and other backers of the bill have repeatedly worn noose-shaped lapel bins to show their support for legislation. Ben-Gvir handed out sweets to Knesset colleagues after the bill passed its first reading. Har-Melech recently dressed as an executioner replete with noose and syringe for the Purim holiday, while her husband donned a costume representing what he called the themes of "occupation, expulsion, settlement"—or the conquest, ethnic cleansing, and settler-colonization of Palestine.
"With God's help, on next Purim we will need far more than a single breath to read the names of all the terrorists who were hanged," Har-Melech said in a video message marking the festive holiday. "And to the Jews there was light and joy and gladness."
Palestinians and their defenders warn that, if passed, the bill could open the door to mass executions.
Hamas, which still rules Gaza despite nearly 29 months of Israeli war and siege, called the bill “a dangerous terrorist step that paves the way for carrying out murder and liquidation crimes against our prisoners."
The Palestinian Prisoners Media Office said Wednesday in a statement: "This dangerous development constitutes an unprecedented escalation in the enemy's policies against our prisoners and represents a flagrant violation of all international laws and conventions. It reveals premeditated intentions to commit an organized crime against the prisoner movement."
The bill has sparked widespread condemnation around the world. United Nations experts have implored Israel to withdraw the bill, arguing it “would violate the right to life and discriminate against Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory."
The European Union Diplomatic Service said Tuesday that the EU "opposes capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances."
"Israel has long upheld a de facto moratorium on both executions and capital punishment sentencing, thereby leading by example in the region despite a complex security environment," the agency added. "Approving this bill would represent a grave step backward from this important practice and from positions Israel has itself expressed in the past."
Israel abolished the death penalty for murder in 1954; currently, its only capital offenses are crimes against humanity and treason. The only execution in Israeli history occurred in 1962 when Holocaust architect Adolf Eichmann was hanged for genocide and crimes against humanity.
One senior Amnesty International official called the bill "yet another tool within Israel’s institutionalized system of apartheid against all Palestinians whose rights it controls."
Some critics noted that around 100 Palestinian prisoners have died in Israeli custody since the Hamas-led attack of October 2023, including some who were allegedly tortured or raped to death.
“Israel is already killing Palestinians on a regular basis—in detention facilities, and in the field, where lethal force is widely used by Israeli settlers and by the military with close to zero accountability,” Yuli Novak, executive director of the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, told The Guardian on Wednesday, adding, "This law is another tool in this toolbox.’’
"If the DOJ is so confident in Trump's conduct, why are they desperate" to hide former special counsel Jack Smith's report, wondered Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee.
Democrats on the US mHouse Judiciary Committee on Wednesday demanded that President Donald Trump's Department of Justice "stop the cover-up" of former special counsel Jack Smith's full investigation into Trump's retention of classified documents following his first term, after new material sent to the panel revealed that some documents were stolen to advance the president's business interests.
Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi about "cherry-picked documents" related to Smith's investigations into Trump's taking of classified documents, which he stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey.
The DOJ has regularly produced documents for the Judiciary Committee as Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has sought to portray Smith as having a partisan vendetta against the president, said Raskin. Smith led investigations into Trump's hoarding of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results during the Biden administration. Last month US District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, permanently blocked the release of Smith's final report on the documents case.
Raskin wrote Wednesday that even as Jordan has embarked on a "vindictive campaign" against Smith and has sought a narrow selection of material from the DOJ, Bondi had "quite amazingly missed the fact that some of the documents you provided include damning evidence about your boss’s conduct and may well violate the gag order your DOJ and Donald Trump demanded from Judge Aileen Cannon."
Those documents include a January 13, 2023 memorandum from prosecutors who said the FBI had determined Trump retained documents that "would be pertinent to certain business interests.” The documents "established a motive for retaining them" that related to Trump's businesses.
Trump and his family have garnered condemnation for profiting off the presidency, with the family raking in more than $5 billion in cryptocurrency profits since he took office for a second time, and Trump's two eldest sons investing in a drone company that is vying for Pentagon contracts as the president wages war on Iran.
The prosecutors' memo also says the retention of some of the documents represented "an aggravated potential harm to national security," with one "particularly sensitive document" accessible only by an estimated six people in the US government, including the president, before he took it to his private property.
Additionally, the memo says prosecutors had "identified a classified map that we believe Trump may have shown to individuals on board” his private airplane in June 2022. Susie Wiles, the CEO of Trump's super political action committee and now the White House chief of staff, "was aboard and witnessed this event. Raskin's letter includes a flight manifest listing 14 people who were aboard Trump's private plane when he allegedly showed the classified map, but all of the names were redacted.
Raskin emphasized that without access to the second volume of Smith's final report, the Judiciary Committee cannot confirm what the classified map shows, the relationship between his business interest and the classified documents, or what the especially sensitive material is.
The congressman noted that some facts are known about Trump's activities around the time that he allegedly showed the classified map:
We do know that around the time of this flight to Bedminster, President Trump was entering into partnerships with Saudi-backed LIV Golf and state-linked real estate firm Dar al Arkan. A month after this flight, in July 2022, President Trump played golf at Bedminster with Yasir al-Rumayyan, head of the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia—the same official who plied the Trump family with tens of millions of dollars as the family began to run out of money between terms... We also know that there are reports that Donald Trump, at one point while on the phone with his ghostwriter, “made a reference to having classified records relating to the bombing of Iran.” He also reportedly boasted that it was only the hawks who wanted to attack Iran, not him, and that he had Pentagon war plans “done by the military and given to me” about such a potential attack.
"If this map is related to our military posture in the Middle East, and it was in fact shown to any foreign official, Saudi or otherwise, that would amount to an unforgivable betrayal of our men and women in uniform who are currently valiantly fighting in President Trump’s disastrous war against Iran," wrote Raskin.
"It is now clear that DOJ is in possession of evidence that President Trump has already endangered national security to further the interests of Trump family businesses," he wrote. "It is time for you to stop the cover-up and allow the American people to know what secrets he betrayed and how he may have cashed in on them."
Raskin demanded information from the DOJ regarding who accessed the classified materials, whether any foreign actors were given access, and what the documents contain.
“Every new detail that comes to light about the report Judge Cannon has gone to great lengths to keep hidden underscores the same basic truth: The public is being denied access to critical information about one of the most serious national security scandals in American history,” said Chioma Chukwu, executive director of the government watchdog American Oversight. “While fragments of the factual record have seen the light of day, the full report remains under seal because Judge Cannon has prioritized the president’s personal interests over transparency. The public has a right to see special counsel Smith’s findings in full. Blocking the report’s release only serves to protect those in power and prevent accountability.”
After Raskin's letter was released, the DOJ took the social media to accuse him and Smith of being "blinded by hatred of President Trump" and pronounce the department "the most transparent in history."
"This letter is nothing more than a cheap political stunt, almost as if taking cues from members of the corrupt Jack Smith prosecution team," said the DOJ.
The House Judiciary Committee Democrats retorted that the administration "is doing legal gymnastics to prevent the American people from ever seeing special counsel Jack Smith's full report on how Trump stole classified documents to advance his corrupt business interests."
"If the DOJ is so confident in Trump's conduct, why are they desperate to keep Smith's report under lock and key?" they asked. "Stop the cover-up, release the evidence, and let the American people decide for ourselves."