

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.
800-584-6460A 55-year-old woman had to be hospitalized after being knocked unconscious by a baton-wielding masked Israeli settler on Sunday.
Israeli settlers on Sunday were caught on camera violently assaulting Palestinian civilians with batons as they were harvesting olives in the West Bank.
As reported by Middle East Eye, several attacks were reported in the town of Turmus Ayya, where Israeli settlers targeted Palestinian farmers and international volunteers who had come to help with the harvest.
One of the victims in the assault was a 55-year-old Palestinian woman named Umm Saleh Abu Alia, whom BBC reports had to be hospitalized after being knocked unconscious by a baton-wielding masked settler. Abu Alia was initially admitted into an intensive care unit, and she is currently in stable condition, according to BBC's sources.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) released a statement saying it "strongly condemns any form of violence" by settlers, but Jasper Nathaniel, a US journalist who filmed the attacks, told BBC that Israeli forces suspiciously "sped off" away from the area shortly before the assault began.
Nathaniel told Drop Site News that settlers are "hunting Palestinians" in the town.
⚡️Exclusive | Drop Site News speaks with journalist Jasper Nathaniel (@infinite_jaz), who documented a brutal settler attack today in Turmus’ayyer village near Ramallah in the occupied West Bank. Jasper tells us Israeli settlers are “hunting Palestinians” — and that if nothing… https://t.co/DP6h89XJCz pic.twitter.com/q6OvvtEp8u
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) October 19, 2025
BBC's report noted that more than a dozen masked Israeli settlers were seen throwing rocks at Palestinians during the Sunday harvest, and Middle East Eye cited reports that the settlers had also set Palestinians' cars on fire and stole their olive crops.
According to The Times of Israel, no arrests have yet been made of any of the settlers who took part in the attacks.
Israeli settlers, who under international law are living illegally in occupied territory, have for years carried out attacks on Palestinian civilians harvesting olives in an attempt to drive them from their lands—sometimes with the participation of IDF soldiers.
Middle East Eye reports that the Colonization and Wall Resistance Commission estimates there have been more than 7,000 settler attacks on Palestinians over the last two years that have claimed the lives of 33 people.
Also on Monday, Drop Site News reported that nearly 1 million of Gaza's 1.1 million olive trees have been bulldozed by the IDF, dried up from lack of water, or are inaccessible due to Israel's assault on the exclave that began in October 2023.
"Trapped in a suffocating Israeli siege since 2007, Palestinians in Gaza have long relied on local agriculture as one of the few ways to survive," wrote Gaza-based journalist Mohamed Suleiman. "Now, even that has been stripped away."
The FTC quietly removed from its website an article titled "AI and the Risk of Consumer Harm" as the Trump administration looks to undercut efforts to regulate artificial intelligence.
The Trump administration's sweeping purge of government content that conflicts with its far-right ideological and policy project has extended to Federal Trade Commission blog posts warning about the threat that burgeoning artificial intelligence technology poses to US consumers.
Wired reported Monday that the Trump administration has, without explanation, deleted AI-related articles published by the FTC during antitrust trailblazer Lina Khan's tenure as chair of the agency. The headlines of two of the removed posts were "Consumers Are Voicing Concerns About AI" and "AI and the Risk of Consumer Harm."
The latter article, which can still be read here, states that the FTC "is increasingly taking note of AI's potential for real-world instances of harm—from incentivizing commercial surveillance to enabling fraud and impersonation to perpetuating illegal discrimination."
"As firms think about their own approach to developing, deploying, and maintaining AI-based systems, they should be considering the risks to consumers that each of them carry in the here and now, and take steps to proactively protect the public before their tools become a future FTC case study," reads the post, which was authored by staff at the FTC's Office of Technology and Division of Advertising Practices.
The page on the FTC website that previously hosted the article now displays an error message.
Wired noted that the Trump FTC's deletion of the Khan-era blog post is part of a broader scrubbing of government content critical of tech giants and artificial intelligence. In March, the outlet reported that Trump's FTC—currently led by Andrew Ferguson—"removed four years' worth of business guidance blogs as of Tuesday morning, including important consumer protection information related to artificial intelligence and the agency's landmark privacy lawsuits under former chair Lina Khan against companies like Amazon and Microsoft."
The mass removal of Khan-era posts marks a sharp—and potentially illegal—break from the previous administration's handling of government-hosted content that conflicted with its views.
"During the Biden administration, FTC leadership placed 'warning' labels on business directives and other guidance published during previous administrations that it disagreed with," Wired reported. One unnamed FTC source told the outlet that the Trump administration's removal of the Khan-era posts "raises serious compliance concerns under the Federal Records Act and the Open Government Data Act."
The Trump administration's deletion of government content critical of AI comes months after it released an "AI Action Plan" that watchdogs pilloried as a gift to large tech corporations and an attempt to hamstring future efforts to regulate artificial intelligence.
The plan calls for a review of all AI-related FTC investigations launched during Khan's tenure "to ensure that they do not advance theories of liability that unduly burden AI innovation."
Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in July that the Trump White House's AI plan was "written by Big Tech."
"A serious AI plan would recognize that the regulation to which this administration is so hostile facilitates innovation—it can help us ensure that we have AI for social good, rather than just corporate profit," said Weissman.
"This is not a 'satire,' it's debasement," argued one critic.
US House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Monday drew swift criticism after he excused President Donald Trump's decision to post an artificial intelligence-generated video featuring him dropping sewage on "No Kings" protesters.
During a Monday press conference, Johnson was asked by a reporter what he made of Trump posting a video that depicted him "pooping on the American people."
Johnson responded by praising Trump for his purported social media savvy.
"The president uses social media to make a point," he said. "You can argue he's probably the most effective person who's ever used social media for that. He is using satire to make a point."
Reporter: Speaker Johnson, you say that Democrats had a hate America rally, but what does it say that the president of released video of him pooping on the American people?
Johnson: The president uses social media to make a point. You can argue he's probably the most effective… pic.twitter.com/3BuyfEGIiZ
— Acyn (@Acyn) October 20, 2025
Many critics, however, didn't see anything satirical about the Trump video and questioned what point it was trying to make other than a desire to defecate on his political opponents.
"His point was that he’s an unaccountable, imperious would-be monarch who would like to dump poop on American cities," wrote Leah Greenberg, co-executive director of Indivisible, one of the main organizers of the "No Kings" demonstrations.
Investment banker Evaristus Odinikaeze disputed that there was anything satirical about Trump's post.
"This is not a 'satire,' it's debasement," he argued. "When the speaker of the House defends a video of the president literally defecating on Americans as 'making a point,' it tells you everything about the moral rot in this cult movement. Leaders with integrity elevate discourse, they don’t normalize humiliation as humor."
Democratic strategist Mike Nellis also questioned whether Johnson had a firm grasp of the meaning of satire.
"So Mike Johnson defended Trump’s weird AI videos this morning as 'satire' meant to 'make a point,'" he wrote on Bluesky. "Can someone ask Johnson what point Trump was making when he posted a video of himself dumping shit all over America? Or when he dropped napalm on Chicago? I’d like an answer."
Just before he deployed hundreds of armed and masked federal immigration agents in Chicago last month, the president posted another AI-generated image that showed the city under attack with a reference to the famous line, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" from the film Apocalypse Now.
Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) marveled that Johnson appears willing to defend anything the president does, no matter how juvenile.
"Mike Johnson is too much of a coward to condemn pooping on people," he wrote.