

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.

Randi Spivak, Center for Biological Diversity, (310) 779-4894, rspivak@biologicaldiversity.org
Jackson Chiappinelli, Earthjustice, jchiappinelli@earthjustice.org
Ellen Montgomery, Environment America, (720) 583-4024 emontgomery@environmentamerica.org
Medhini Kumar, Sierra Club, medhini.kumar@sierraclub.org
Steve Pedery, Oregon Wild, sp@oregonwild.org
Zack Porter, Standing Trees, (617) 872-5352, zporter@standingtrees.org
Adam Rissien, WildEarth Guardians, (406) 370-3147, arissien@wildearthguardians.org
Environmental groups delivered more than 122,000 public comments today urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Interior Department to protect mature and old-growth forests and trees on federal public lands from logging.
The comments are in response to President Biden's executive order to protect and inventory mature and old-growth forests on national forests and other federally managed lands. Today's comment deadline was for defining mature and old-growth forests.
"Logging is the greatest immediate threat to the beautiful old trees and forests on our public lands," said Randi Spivak, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's public lands program. "Tens of thousands of people have told the Biden administration that they want these carbon-storing giants protected. By letting old-growth and mature trees grow, we'll be safeguarding carbon, clean water and air, and biodiversity. Our climate and future generations depend on it."
In addition to the public comments, more than 100 climate and conservation organizations signed a letter calling for a strong, lasting administrative rule to protect these essential climate solutions.
Environmental groups said mature and old-growth forests and trees should be defined as 80 years and older to protect against logging, which undermines Biden's directive to retain and enhance carbon storage and conserve biodiversity. By 80 years of age, trees have accumulated decades of stored carbon and provide significant biodiversity benefits.
The groups are calling for a federal rule that would designate stands and trees older than 80 years off limits to logging, with carefully tailored exceptions for non-commercial activities such as those that support Tribal cultures or appropriate measures to protect structures from fire.
The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management opened the public comment period in July following Biden's Earth Day order to define, inventory and develop policies to protect mature and old-growth forests on federal lands. Biden said these public forests "represent some of the most biodiverse parts of our planet and play an irreplaceable role in reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions."
Preserving mature and old-growth forests and trees is a meaningful, cost-effective measure the Biden administration can take immediately to mitigate climate change. U.S. federal forests sequester 35 million metric tons of carbon annually, a number that could rise steadily with new conservation measures.
"There is no question that mature and old-growth trees are vital to the current health and livable future of our planet. In the face of the worsening climate crisis, a federal rule must be established to protect these trees for future generations," said Blaine Miller-McFeeley, senior legislative representative at Earthjustice. "As thousands have clearly expressed during this comment period, creating a simple definition is a key first step, and the administration should now move forward swiftly to protect these giants from logging and all threats, before they are gone."
Mature and old-growth forests store and sequester vast amounts of carbon, making them an essential resource for achieving our nation's climate commitments. They also offer other crucial ecosystem values, including wildlife habitat for vulnerable species, clean water for people across the country, and recreation.
"Trees capture and store the pollution that causes climate change, and the older and larger they become the more effective they are," said Steve Pedery, conservation director with Oregon Wild. "Protecting mature and old-growth forests on America's public lands is one of the biggest single steps we can take to combat climate change. President Biden should move quickly to adopt a national rule to protect these vital climate forests."
Larger, older trees are generally more resistant to wildfires. Preserving mature and old-growth forests and trees is a meaningful, cost-effective measure the Biden administration can take immediately to help mitigate climate change. Federal forests sequester 35 million metric tons of carbon annually, a number that could rise steadily with new conservation measures to let these older trees continue to grow.
"Carbon storage moving into the future is essential, as we address our ever-changing climate and its rippling effects," said Alex Craven, senior campaign representative at the Sierra Club. "One of the most effective tools for carbon removal -- mature and old-growth forests -- are literally right in front of us, and all we need to do is protect them and keep them standing."
While the public comment period was underway this summer, the Climate Forests coalition published a report detailing federal logging proposals targeting nearly a quarter of a million acres of old-growth and mature forests and trees across nine states, from California to Vermont. The report called on the Biden administration to pass a permanent rule to protect these critically vital trees, which would align with its pledge to protect federal forests as well as live up to its climate commitments.
"Mature and old-growth forests are North America's 'lungs' as they draw down and store massive amounts of atmospheric carbon vital to reducing severe climate impacts," said Dominick A. DellaSala, Ph.D., chief scientist at Wild Heritage.
"Today's mature forests are our children and grandchildren's old growth," said Zack Porter, director of the New England-based public land advocacy organization Standing Trees. "Healthy forests are complex ecosystems, but protecting them for the benefit of future generations is remarkably simple: It's past time to end logging of forests over age 80 on federal lands."
"Our forests do it all. They filter our air and water, provide habitat for hundreds of species and help us fight climate change," said Ellen Montgomery, public lands campaign director with Environment America. "Our older forests are the real champs, performing all of these functions better than their younger counterparts. If we leave our 80-year-old trees and forests standing, they'll become more valuable every decade."
In addition to public comments, more than 100 climate and conservation organizations submitted a letter calling for a strong, lasting administrative rule to protect old-growth forests from logging.
"Undoubtedly, the Biden administration should move quickly to protect mature and old-growth forests, not only to ensure their role as a natural climate-crisis solution, but also to protect crucial habitat for plants and animals," said Adam Rissien, rewilding manager with WildEarth Guardians. "Sadly, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management fail to recognize logging as a threat and are moving quickly to chop down these forests under the guise of reducing wildfires."
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) 623-5252"Messiah complexes, talk of revenge, and the use of force against journalists are just symptoms of what's been happening to the army over the past three years," said one Israeli journalist.
Soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces on Friday were caught on camera assaulting and detaining a crew of CNN journalists while they were reporting from the occupied West Bank.
A video of the incident posted on social media by CNN Jerusalem correspondent Jeremy Diamond shows the CNN crew walking near the Palestinian village of Tayasir, which in recent days has come under assault from Israeli settlers who established an illegal outpost in the area.
The crew are then accosted by armed members of the IDF, who order them to sit down. After the crew complies with their commands, the soldiers come to seize the journalists' cameras and phones that are being used to record the incident.
A soldier then puts CNN photojournalist Cyril Theophilos in a chokehold and forces him to the ground. Writing about the assault later, Theophilos said that the soldier "pushed and strangled me," adding that this kind of violence "is just a symptom of the IDF's actions in the West Bank."
According to Diamond, the CNN crew were subsequently detained for two hours. During that time, Diamond wrote, it became clear that the ideology of the Israeli settlers movement was "motivating many of the soldiers who operate in the occupied West Bank" and that the Israeli military regularly acts "in service of the settler movement."
For instance, one IDF soldier acknowledged during conversations with the CNN crew that the settler outpost near Tayasir was unlawful under both international and Israeli law, but insisted "this will be a legal settlement... slowly, slowly."
The soldier also said he wanted to exact "revenge" on local Palestinians for the death of 18-year-old Israeli settler Yehuda Sherman, who was killed last week by a Palestinian driver. Palestinians who witnessed Sherman's killing have said that the driver was trying to stop Sherman from stealing sheep.
The IDF issued an apology to CNN over the incident, insisting that "the actions and behavior of the soldiers in the incident are incompatible with what is expected of IDF soldiers."
However, this apology was deemed insufficient by Barak Ravid, global affairs correspondent for Axios.
"Apologies are not enough," he wrote on social media. "There is a need for clear accountability. 99.9% of the time there is zero accountability."
The soldiers' actions also drew condemnation from Haaretz reporter Bar Peleg, who argued that problems in the IDF have only grown worse under the far-right government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"Messiah complexes, talk of revenge, and the use of force against journalists are just symptoms of what's been happening to the army over the past three years," Peleg said. "The chief of staff and the commanding general can write another thousand letters and wave flags all they want, but the process already seems irreversible."
Palestinian human rights activist Ihab Hassan argued that incidents like the one captured by CNN are all too common for the IDF.
"The Israeli army arrests and assaults journalists, while settlers who commit horrific crimes against Palestinian civilians enjoy total impunity," he wrote. "This is state-backed terrorism."
"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly," said leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus, "it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color."
In what's being called an "exceedingly rare" move, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is blocking the promotion of two Black and two female colonels to one-star generals,
The New York Times reported Friday that some senior US military officials are questioning whether Hegseth acted out of animus toward Black people and women after the defense secretary blocked the promotion of the four officers despite the repeated objections of Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, who touted what the Times called the colonels' "decadeslong records of exemplary service."
Military officials told the Times that Hegseth's chief of staff, Lt. Col. Ricky Buria, got into a heated exchange with Driscoll last summer over the promotion of another officer, Maj. Gen. Antoinette Gant—a combat veteran of the US invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq—to command the Military District of Washington, DC.
Such a promotion would have placed Gant in charge of numerous events at which she would likely be seen publicly with President Donald Trump. According to multiple military officials, Buria told Driscoll that Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer.
Pete Hegseth looked at a list of qualified officers and decided Black leaders and women had to go.That’s not leadership. It’s discrimination in plain sight.And every Republican who stays silent is complicit.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Norma Torres (@normajtorres.bsky.social) March 27, 2026 at 10:10 AM
A shocked Driscoll reportedly replied that "the president is not racist or sexist," an assessment that flies in the face of countless racist and sexist statements by the president, both before and during both of his White House terms.
Buria called the officials' account of his exchange with Driscoll "completely false."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to discuss the matter beyond saying that Hegseth is “doing a tremendous job restoring meritocracy throughout the ranks at the Pentagon, as President Trump directed him to do.”
Military officials told the Times that one of the Black colonels whose promotion was blocked by Hegseth wrote a paper nearly 15 years ago historically analyzing differences between Black and white soldiers' roles in the Army. One of the female colonels, a logistics officer, was held back because she was deployed in Afghanistan during the US withdrawal whose foundation was laid by Trump during his first term. It is unclear why the two other colonels were denied promotions.
Although more than 40% of current active duty US troops are people of color, military leadership remains overwhelmingly comprised of white men. Hegseth, who declared a "frontal assault" on the "whores to wokesters" who he said rose up through the ranks during the Biden administration, told an audience during a 250th anniversary ceremony for the US Navy that "your diversity is not your strength."
Hegseth has argued that women should not serve in combat roles, although he later walked back his assertion amid pushback from senators during his confirmation process. Still, since Trump returned to office, every service branch chief and 9 of the military’s 10 combat commanders are white men.
Leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus issued a joint statement Friday calling Hegseth's blocking of the four colonels' promotions "outrageous and wrong."
"The claim that Hegseth’s chief of staff told the army secretary Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer at military events is racist, sexist, and extremely concerning," wrote the lawmakers, Reps. Yvette Clarke (NY), Teresa Leger Fernández (NM), Emilia Sykes (Ohio), Hillary Scholten (Mich.), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.).
"Time and time again, Trump and his administration have shown us exactly who they are—attacking and undermining Black people and women in the military, public servants, and women in power," the congressional leaders asserted. "It is clear they are trying to erase Black and women’s leadership and history."
"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly, it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color," their statement said.
"We've long known that Pete Hegseth is an unfit and unqualified secretary of defense appointed by Trump," the lawmakers added. "So it is absurd, ironic, and beyond inappropriate that he of all people would deny these promotions to officers with records of exemplary service. America's servicemembers deserve so much better.”
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also issued a statement reading, "If these reports are accurate, Secretary Hegseth's decision to remove four decorated officers from a promotion list after having been selected by their peers for their merit and performance is not only outrageous, it would be illegal."
"Denying the promotions of individual officers based on their race or gender would betray every principle of merit-based service military officers uphold throughout their careers," Reed added.
Several congressional colleagues weighed in, like Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a decorated combat veteran who lost her legs when an Iraqi defending his homeland from US invasion shot down the Blackhawk helicopter she was piloting. Duckworth said on Bluesky: "He says he wants to bring meritocracy back to our military. He says he has our warfighters' backs. But here he is, the most unqualified SecDef in history, denying troops a promotion that their fellow warfighters decided they've earned. Hegseth is a disgrace to our heroes."
Other observers also condemned Hegseth's move, with historian Virginia Scharff accusing him of "undermining national security with his racism and misogyny," and City University of New York English Chair Jonathan Gray decrying the "gutter racist" who "should be hounded from public life for the damage he’s caused."
More than 7 million borrowers booted from a Biden-era loan forgiveness program will have to quickly switch to a new plan using a system that's been backed up for months.
After axing a Biden-era student loan repayment program, the Trump administration is threatening to kick its millions of mostly low-income beneficiaries onto the government's most expensive plan unless they switch to a new one quickly.
The Washington Post reported on Friday that the Department of Education was beginning to email the more than 7 million people enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, telling them they needed to change their plan within the next 90 days.
Around 4.5 million of those borrowers earn incomes between 150% and 225%, allowing them to qualify for zero-dollar monthly payments under SAVE, which the Trump administration effectively killed in December after settling with Republican states who'd brought lawsuits against the program under former President Joe Biden.
Anonymous officials told The Post that those who do not switch plans within three months of receiving the email will automatically be re-enrolled in the Standard Plan. Unlike SAVE, which is income-based, the Standard plan has borrowers pay a fixed rate over 10 years.
Standard typically carries the highest monthly payments, and those transitioning to it from SAVE could pay more than $300 extra per month in some cases, with the poorest borrowers seeing the sharpest increases.
While 90 days may seem like plenty of time to switch to a less expensive repayment plan, it's not nearly that simple.
Due to the large exodus of borrowers, the Department of Education has struggled to process all the forms, processing only about 250,000 per month. Many borrowers who have tried to transition have found themselves waiting months for a reply.
To make matters more confusing, many of these borrowers will have to switch programs again soon, since all but one repayment program will be dissolved on July 1, 2028 as a result of last year's Republican budget law. The remaining plan will also be income-driven, though it is still expected to cost borrowers more each month.
According to a report released last month by the Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers, two groups that support loan forgiveness, nearly 9 million student loan borrowers are in default. During Trump's first year back in office, the student loan delinquency rate jumped from roughly zero to 25%, which it called "precedent-shattering."
"Much of the rise in delinquencies can be linked to the Trump administration’s actions aimed at increasing student loan payments," the report said. “The US Department of Education blocked borrowers from accessing more affordable payments through income-driven plans, having ordered a stoppage in application processing for three months and mass-denying 328,000 applications in August 2025. As of December 31, 2025, a warehouse’s worth of 734,000 applications sat unprocessed.”
Being in default has major ramifications for borrowers' finances. Those with delinquent loans saw their credit scores decrease by an average of 57 points during the first three quarters of 2025, dragging around 2 million of them into "subprime" territory, which forces them to pay thousands of dollars more for auto and personal loans and makes them more likely to have difficulty finding housing and employment.
The report estimated that if those booted from SAVE defaulted at the same rate as other borrowers, the number of student loan borrowers in distress could rise as high as 17 million.
According to Protect Borrowers, the typical family will pay more than $3,000 per year in additional costs as a result of the end of SAVE.
The end of SAVE comes as oil shocks caused by Trump's war in Iran have spiked gas prices and threaten to raise them throughout the economy, adding to the already elevated costs of food, housing, and transportation resulting from the president's aggressive tariff regime.
"In the middle of an affordability crisis driven by Donald Trump," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), "Trump is killing a plan that lowers student loan costs. It's shameful."