

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.

Kristen Monsell, kmonsell@biologicaldiversity.org
Disasters Could Threaten Endangered Species With Extinction
The Trump administration’s proposal to dramatically ramp up offshore oil drilling could lead to 4,232 oil spills, dumping 12.1 million gallons of oil into ocean waters, according to an analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity.
The Center’s spill analysis of Trump’s draft 2026-2031 leasing plan is based on historical data and federal records.
“Our analysis shows that Trump’s ridiculously reckless drilling plan could cause thousands of new oil spills, threatening almost every U.S. coast,” said Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Nobody wants beaches and marine life coated in crude, but that’ll be our future if Trump’s scheme goes forward. Every new drilling project signs us up for decades of problems, and our wildlife and coastal economies will suffer the most.”
Today’s analysis assumes average spill rates for platforms and pipelines based on 1974-2015 data. It does not include catastrophic events like the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, which released more than 210 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
Trump’s draft plan calls for as many as 34 offshore oil and gas lease sales over the next five years. It could open up as much as 1.27 billion acres of federal waters to drilling off California, Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico. That amount is far more than previous administrations have offered. It is in addition to 36 offshore oil lease sales mandated in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
The Center’s oil spill calculations and estimates for each planning area are available here and FAQs for the projections are here.
By the administration’s own estimates, the increase in extraction and fossil fuel combustion could also add as much greenhouse gas pollution to the atmosphere as burning nearly 200 billion pounds of coal.
Several imperiled species are at risk from increased drilling:
Pacific
Sea otter: Known for their thick furry coats, sea otters once inhabited the entire U.S. Pacific coast, all the way from Alaska down to Baja California. Sea otters are especially vulnerable to oil spills that coat their fur, ruining their natural insulation against the cold. Otters already face oil spill threats from existing offshore drilling near the southern part of their current range, and expanded drilling could halt recovery and reintroduction efforts.
Southern resident killer whale: These orcas spend most of their time in the Pacific Northwest, but regularly travel as far south as Monterey, California. Running into an oil spill in Northern California could devastate this genetically distinct population, which is down to just 74 individuals.
Blue whale: The largest seasonal aggregation of these enormous mammals occurs in the Santa Barbara Channel off California, an area already at risk of oil spills from existing drilling nearby. Blue whale populations have been steadily growing since whaling wiped out an estimated 99% of the species, but they still have a long way to go.
Pacific leatherback sea turtle: As ancient as the dinosaurs, these turtles migrate all the way from Indonesia and then along the West Coast to feed on jellyfish and other gelatinous prey. Leatherbacks are the heaviest reptiles on Earth, and their population is already declining from existing threats such as fishing gear entanglement.
Gulf of Mexico
Black-capped petrel: These far-traveling seabirds forage in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic coast, returning to raise their young on Hispaniola, the island of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Also called diablotín, or “little devil,” for their eerie night calls, the petrel’s population has declined quickly, and oil spills could kill the food sources they fly hundreds of miles to find. Additionally, artificial lighting from offshore oil platforms disorients migrating seabirds and even causes them to collide with platforms.
Rice’s whale: The critically endangered Rice’s whale lives in the Gulf year-round, and only about 50 individuals remain. Scientists estimate that the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster killed about 20% of their population, and another major spill could wipe them out completely. As surface swimmers, the whales are also prone to ship strikes. Seismic airgun blasting used by the oil and gas industry disrupts their ability to communicate, find mates and care for their young.
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle: Beaches along the Gulf are the primary nesting sites for these turtles, which have rebounded from near-extinction thanks to breeding programs and conservation interventions. But they are still highly imperiled and their continued recovery relies on a healthy Gulf ecosystem, which more oil spills could easily disrupt.
Alaska
Bowhead whale: Arctic oil drilling and climate charge are the primary threats for these cold-water giants. Bowhead populations have come back from the brink thanks to commercial whaling prohibitions, but the whales are now contending with a changing habitat due to melting sea ice.
Pacific walrus: The Center has been fighting for endangered species protections for the blubbery tusked walrus for almost two decades. Exploratory offshore drilling in the Chukchi Sea posed a huge risk to walrus habitat, until the Center and allies blocked the project. Trump’s plan revives the threat.
Cook Inlet beluga whale: The population of these small, white whales is only about 330. They face threats from existing oil and gas extraction, commercial shipping and climate change. Cook Inlet is already crowded with industry and at risk of spills, and ramping up drilling could be fatal for these belugas.
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"The right-wing bullshit machine is operating at full steam and across all cylinders today," said one critic.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday posted an account of the deadly shooting in Minneapolis by a federal immigration officer that was completely at odds with all evidence seen so far.
In a post on Truth Social, the president claimed that the woman killed in her car by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer "violently, willfully, and viciously ran over" him, forcing him to fire his weapon at her in self-defense.
Trump further claimed that it "is hard to believe" that the ICE officer "is alive" after being supposedly run over.
Eyewitness videos taken at the scene of the incident, however, do not show the officer getting run over at all. In fact, the officer can be seen walking around after discharging his weapon, with no signs of any injury.
In fact, the video Trump posted on his Truth Social that he claims shows the officer being run over does not at all show the officer being run over, but rather stepping safely out of the way as the car starts moving forward.
The New Republic's Greg Sargent carefully examined the video posted by Trump and concluded that it "demonstrates nothing close to what" the president claimed it showed.
"This is a sick, malicious lie from Trump," Sargent commented.
Reporter Sam Stein of the Bulwark also provided a swift debunking of Trump's claims.
"Hard to believe the ICE officer is still alive, writes the president," Stein wrote on X, "of an ICE officer who was not hit at all and was well enough to go run down the street to check on the woman he had killed."
John Hopkins University economist Filipe Campante was struck by just how little effort the president feels he needs to exert to make his lies convincing.
"That he chooses the 'me or your lying eyes?' approach, in the full knowledge that there are multiple videos out there, is a striking commentary on the nature of propaganda in the modern information environment," Campante wrote on Bluesky. "Censorship is no longer viable, so the approach is to use your own content provision to drown out any negative facts/evidence."
Tour guide and author Ben Edwards marveled at the president's ability to make completely fact-free assertions.
"The country is slowly starting to come apart," Edwards observed. "Trump lives in an alternate reality. He cannot speak a word of truth."
Disinformation researcher Kate Starbird warned that Trump's low-effort propaganda was still likely to prove effective with his followers.
"The right-wing bullshit machine is operating at full steam and across all cylinders today," Starbird wrote, "strategically framing the horrific ICE killing of a Minnesota woman to defend/bolster their political aims. For example, Trump's message... will shape how his supporters (willfully mis)interpret the video evidence."
The Trump administration "is going to be spending just as much time running Venezuela as they are running America," Sen. Chris Murphy said in an address to voters. "That's terrible news for you."
Democratic lawmakers were stunned as they emerged from a briefing Wednesday with Trump administration officials on the White House's plan for Venezuela following the US invasion last week—a meeting that marked the first time all members of the US Senate and House were briefed on the details of the attack and President Donald Trump's intentions going forward in the South American country.
"We learned a lot, I'm glad we had the briefing," a visibly shaken Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told reporters. "But this is going to be a very rough ride for the United States."
The senators and later members of the House were briefed by officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Pam Bondi, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Dan Caine.
As Rubio told the press after the meeting, the lawmakers learned about a three-step process the White House is planning, starting with an effort to "stabilize" Venezuela by seizing and selling 30-50 million barrels of oil and then controlling how the proceeds are dispersed.
The US will then ensure “American, Western, and other companies have access to the Venezuelan market in a way that’s fair” before ensuring that the third step is "one of transition," claimed Rubio.
Murphy said the proposal amounts to "stealing the Venezuelan oil at gunpoint for a period of time, undefined, as leverage to micromanage the country."
Murphy: "This is an insane plan. They are talking about stealing the Venezuelan oil at gun point for an undefined period of time as leverage to micromanage the country. The scope and insanity of that plan is absolutely stunning…This is going to be a very rough ride for the U.S." pic.twitter.com/0fQ2KryJTS
— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) January 7, 2026
"This is an insane plan," he said after the briefing. "The scope and insanity of that plan is absolutely stunning."
In a video he posted on social media, Murphy spoke directly to US voters about how Trump's plan represents not only "corruption" that will benefit the president's "energy industry and Wall Street friends" and a "failure to learn lessons" from the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also an abandonment of working families across the US.
"This is going to be a multi-billion-dollar effort which is going to take money—your money—but also enormous time," said the senator. "Donald Trump, the White House, everybody there is going to be spending just as much time running Venezuela as they are running America. That's terrible news for you, for the American taxpayer. Because there's huge problems here at home. Healthcare premiums, prices going up, and now the United States government is going to be spending most of its time on many days running the country of Venezuela."
The Senate finally got briefed by the Trump Administration on Venezuela today - and I'm going to share with you what I can.
The bottom line is this - their plan is insane: take Venezuela's oil at gunpoint and use it run the country from DC. America is nation building again. pic.twitter.com/yEqaCTlNtl
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) January 7, 2026
At a press briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt elaborated on Rubio's comments, saying that the decisions of Venezuela's interim authorities—including Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed power after President Nicolás Maduro was abducted by US forces last week—"are going to be dictated by the United States of America.” She added that it is premature to discuss elections in the country.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) told reporters after the House's classified briefing that "there has to be a timeline for elections,” while Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said, “It’s like they’ll wave a magic wand and things will turn out the way they want.”
Numerous polls have shown that Trump's escalation against Venezuela, which has also included dozens of boat bombings since September that have killed more than 100 people whom the White House claimed were trafficking drugs to the US, is broadly unpopular with Americans. Nearly two-thirds of respondents to a Quinnipiac University survey said last month that they opposed US military operations in Venezuela.
“Across America, people are just saying, what the hell is going on?” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said after the briefing. “We need answers as to how long this is going to last. We need answers to how many troops, how much money, are there guardrails, things we don’t do, and a number of things that we had talked about were very troubling.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was among the lawmakers who said the White House briefing made clear that Congress must hold public hearings on the Trump administration's operations in Venezuela, adding that oil companies—who Trump openly said on Sunday were informed of the military strike and capture of Maduro before they happened—"seem to know more about Trump's secret plan to 'run' Venezuela than the American people."
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) added that the US is "four months into a sustained military operation" and has killed more than 200 so-called "enemies."
"American troops have been injured," he said. "We have the US forces arranged around Venezuela. Yet neither the House nor the Senate have been willing to hold a single public hearing."
"The Trump administration is blatantly colonialist, and proud of it."
On the heels of President Donald Trump’s threats to use military force to conquer Greenland, Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested during a Wednesday press conference that US presidents reserve the right to do so not only in the Danish territory, but anywhere in the world.
The conference came shortly after Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth briefed lawmakers about Trump's illegal operation to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro last weekend.
After Rubio laid out plans for the US to take control of 30 million to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil following a deal with its newly installed government, reporters attempted to ask Rubio to explain the administration's designs on Greenland.
On Tuesday, amid international outcry, the White House issued a statement that acquiring Greenland was a "national security priority" and that "utilizing the US military is always an option" to annex the Arctic island.
European leaders met on Wednesday to discuss a potential response if Trump were to launch a military operation to seize Greenland, which has been a territory of Denmark—now a NATO member—for over 300 years.
Rubio appeared sheepish about discussing Trump's saber-rattling. Asked by a reporter whether he'd take military intervention "off the table," he shrugged: "I'm not here to talk about Denmark or military intervention. I'll be meeting with them next week."
Rubio pivoted to discuss the president's interest in buying Greenland, which he has suggested since his first term in office. But reporters continued to press on what was meant by Trump's suggestion that the military may be used.
After continuing to stall—and, at one point, interrupting a reporter to tell him he'd "lost a lot of weight"—Rubio obliquely addressed the president's threats.
He said: "Guys, what I think the White House said yesterday is what I will tell you now, and I've always said: The president always retained the option—every president, not this president, every president—always retains the option... I'm not talking about Greenland, I'm talking about globally. If the president identifies a threat to the national security of the United States, every president retains the option to address it through military means."
"As a diplomat, which is what I am... we always prefer to settle it in different ways," Rubio continued. "That included in Venezuela. We tried repeatedly to reach an outcome here that did not involve having to go in and grab an indicted drug trafficker. Those were unsuccessful, unfortunately."
The United Nations Charter, which the US has signed, allows for the use of military force against other sovereign nations only in very narrow circumstances: in self-defense against an imminent attack, or when approved by the UN Security Council as necessary to prevent a threat to peace.
The Trump administration has attempted to stretch this definition to justify its overthrow of the Venezuelan government, claiming that supposed drug trafficking from Venezuela constitutes an imminent threat to the US. But Venezuela is not considered a large player in the global drug trade, and even if it were, drug trafficking has never been considered equivalent to an armed attack under international law.
Rubio did not clarify what "threat" Greenland supposedly poses to the United States. Earlier this week, Trump stated that the US "needs" the island because it is supposedly "covered with Russian and Chinese ships," which isn't true, but would not constitute an imminent threat to the US even if it were.
When a reporter then asked Trump what justification the US would have to take Greenland, he responded that “the [European Union] needs us to have it.” Several major EU members, in fact, issued a harsh condemnation of the idea on Tuesday.
International relations scholars agree with virtual unanimity that for the US to forcibly annex Greenland would not be a legitimate use of force. But Section 2(4) of the UN Charter also forbids the threat of military force as a tool of leverage in negotiations, which Trump may be using in a possible bid to buy Greenland.
"International law does not recognize title obtained through unlawful force," wrote Edmarverson A. Santos, a Dublin-based international law and policy researcher. "The prohibition extends beyond actual armed attack. Contemporary doctrine recognizes that serious threats of force, particularly when coupled with political or military pressure, can fall within the scope of Article 2(4)."
Since its attack on Venezuela, the Trump administration has threatened to use similar force to knock over the governments of several other countries as part of what he has described as a 21st-century revival of the colonial-era "Monroe Doctrine."
Trump issued threats to Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum and Colombian President Gustavo Petro. Rubio, meanwhile, said that if he were part of Cuba's socialist government, he'd "be concerned, at least a little bit."
On Tuesday, André Nollkaemper, a professor of public international law at the University of Amsterdam, warned that Trump's increasing belligerence toward Europe was the direct outcome of European leaders' meek response to his attack on Venezuela.
"The long-term impact of US intervention in Venezuela will not be decided in Caracas or Washington, but elsewhere," he wrote for the German academic site Verfassungsblog. "With intervention now framed as a standard policy instrument of the USA, it is the response of other states—including in Europe—that will determine whether the erosion of international law becomes normalized across regions."
"In deciding the course and content of its response, Europe might be tempted to assume that this new strategy is limited to Latin America, and that the United States should be given some room there," he continued. "That would, of course, be irresponsible; in terms of its implications for international law, and with regard to Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba—not to mention Greenland."