

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) 623-5252The Massachusett Democrat denied that his comments were an endorsement of the Republican, but critics said they did not appear aimed at "working for a Democratic congressional majority."
With Graham Platner set to become the official Democratic US Senate candidate in Maine following Gov. Janet Mills' suspension of her primary campaign, progressives on Tuesday were incensed by a Massachusetts congressman’s public opposition to the populist oyster farmer, which arrived with a tacit endorsement of five-term Republican Sen. Susan Collins instead.
Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), a former GOP organizer and the scion of an influential political family with Wall Street and Kennedy ties, told CNN Monday that he views a tattoo Platner got while serving in the US Marines as "disqualifying."
"I hope Maine voters agree with me," he said. "I think it would be a mistake for the Democratic Party to think that Graham Platner's brand of the Democratic Party is what wins us durable majorities throughout this country."
💥NEW: Dem Rep. Jake Auchincloss says Graham Platner’s Nazi tattoo should be “DISQUALIFYING”🤯
“I find that tattoo and his commentary about it to be personally disqualifying. I hope Maine voters agree with me.”
CNN’s Boris Sanchez: “Wow.” pic.twitter.com/tMzWkz9h88
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) May 25, 2026
The tattoo, which Platner says he got after a night of drinking with fellow soldiers while on shore leave during a tour of duty, resembled a skull-and-crossbones symbol worn by some Nazi soldiers. A controversy broke out last October over the tattoo as well as old posts Platner wrote in online forums in the years after his military service. He has maintained he did not know the tattoo's origins and that the old posts don't represent his current views.
The controversy did not stop Platner from polling well ahead of Mills before her decision to drop out late last month, and ahead of his presumed Republican opponent in at least one recent poll. Several US senators have endorsed him and he has outpaced both Mills and Collins in fundraising as he's held standing-room-only town halls and rallies across the state, railing against oligarchy and President Donald Trump's attacks on immigrant communities and demanding a Medicare for All system and a tax on billionaires' wealth.
Auchincloss' comments suggested he hasn't noticed, or been moved by, the mounting evidence that Platner's campaign is resonating with Democratic voters—who numerous polls have shown are in agreement with the candidate on his demand for a government-funded universal healthcare system and his condemnation of the US government's unconditional support for Israel, as well as the pro-Israel lobby's massive influence on US politics in recent decades.
The Massachusetts lawmaker, meanwhile, appears increasingly out of step with the voters he hoped to sway with his comments.
In addition to opposing Medicare for All, in his state's delegation in the US House, Auchincloss is behind only one member—Rep. Katherine Clark (D)—in taking donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an organization that has long poured money into efforts to elect pro-Israel candidates on both sides of the aisle, but which is increasingly toxic among voters amid Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza and Palestinian communities across the West Bank.
Some critics noted that Auchincloss' position as chairman of a group called Majority Democrats—which promises to "win and sustain Democratic majorities"—was decidedly out of line with encouraging voters to oppose the presumptive winner of the Democratic primary—set for June 9—in a state that's crucial for the party to win in November if it is to wrest control of the Senate from the GOP.
Helen Brosnan, national political director of United Auto Workers, accused Auchincloss of "hating a pro-labor, anti-establishment candidate so much that you root for a Republican to win and ensure we lose the Senate."
Adam Carlson of Zenith Polls wondered whether Auchincloss "still supports his organization’s stated mission," "why he wants Trump to have a Republican Senate majority for his final two years in office," and "why he wants Trump to be able to appoint more MAGA justices to the Supreme Court and federal bench."
And Ryan Grim of Drop Site News noted that Democratic Party leaders would be unlikely to tolerate such behavior if the shoe were on the other ideological foot.
"If a Democrat endorses from the left against another Democrat in a primary, all hell comes down on them," said Grim. "Here’s Rep. Auchincloss coming out against the presumptive Democratic nominee in a crucial swing state. Probably actually helps Platner to have Dems like Auchincloss against him, but I still wonder if he’ll hear from Dem leadership or if they’re quietly ok with Collins.
Auchincloss on Tuesday denied the accusation that his remarks served as an endorsement of Platner's presumed opponent in the general election, pointing to his "track record supporting Democrats to take back both chambers."
But he repeated that "if it were me I'd vote for someone else in the Maine Democratic primary."
The latest poll conducted before Mills suspended her campaign found her 35 points behind Platner. A survey taken in March also asked Mainers about two other lesser-known candidates: organizer Andrea LaFlamme, who is running a write-in campaign and was polling at 2%, and former government worker David Costello, who was polling at 1%.
Grim and others drew attention to a "highly qualified" candidate who is challenging Auchincloss in Massachusetts' Fourth District in the September 1 primary: artificial intelligence and policy researcher Jason Poulos, who supports Medicare for All, protecting workers from AI displacement, strengthening unions, regulating AI data centers, and canceling student debt.
On his campaign website, Poulos, who supports ending military support for Israel, has condemned Auchincloss for counting the pro-Israel lobby as his "top campaign funder."
"When a congressman’s single largest source of campaign funds comes from a lobbying network whose top financiers have poured $230 million into electing Donald Trump," the website states, "voters deserve to ask: Whose interests does he represent?"
"Primary voters won’t trust any Democratic presidential candidate who does not have a record of moral and strategic clarity on these issues."
A senior Senate Democrat said his party needs to own up to its "complicity" in Israel's genocide in Gaza and attacks on Palestinians, and warned against reinstating the foreign policy officials from the Biden administration who have enabled them.
In a New York Times op-ed published Tuesday, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.)—a senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who has visited the occupied Palestinian territories multiple times since October 7, 2023—wrote that "Democrats need to face a hard truth," that their party "has provided reflexive and unconditional support to Israeli governments, even as their actions have increasingly undermined American interests and values."
Seeming to recognize the overwhelming shift in opinion against Israel among the US public, and especially Democratic voters, over the last two-plus years, the senator said Americans “do not want to be complicit in ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, or what human rights organizations and scholars have determined to be genocide in Gaza.”
The things he witnessed firsthand while visiting the region—the ruins of Gaza left behind by US-provided bombs, the "apartheid system" in the West Bank, and the accelerating forced displacement of Palestinians by violent West Bank settlers—he said, were the responsibility of "both Republican and Democratic administrations."
While noting President Donald Trump's role in legitimizing Israel's expansionist project during his first term, Van Hollen said former President Joe Biden "failed to reverse most of these actions, even as Israel elected the most extremist government in its history" and after October 7, "failed to use US leverage as Israel imposed devastating collective punishment on the people of Gaza."
He said Democrats must pursue a “last-gasp effort” to revive the idea of a “two-state solution,” which he acknowledged Israel’s gradual annexation of the West Bank has made increasingly untenable.
"Presidents have paid lip service to that goal even as Israeli settlements stretched into the West Bank. This time must be different. The United States must draw a red line against Palestinian displacement, and we must enforce it," Van Hollen said, calling for the US to restrict “offensive” weapons to Israel until it agrees to a plan to end the occupation of Palestinian territory and one for a two-state solution.
Van Hollen said “Democrats must stand firm against... headwinds” like the powerful influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which has used its vast resources to target candidates who criticize Israel.
"Primary voters won’t trust any Democratic presidential candidate who does not have a record of moral and strategic clarity on these issues, especially if, as a legislator, he or she voted to send [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu bombs even as his government imposed a total blockade on Gaza," Van Hollen said. "Nor will they support a candidate who plans to re-enlist the senior Democratic decision makers who whitewashed the truth during the Biden administration and refuse to acknowledge their complicity."
"Democrats failed to meet the moment in 2024," he concluded. "Americans were rightly fed up with Democratic hypocrisy and complicity in the gross violation of the values we profess to hold dear. That, in turn, hurt our credibility with voters. We cannot let that happen again."
Van Hollen’s message comes as many of the senior figures who architected Biden’s “blank check” policy toward Netanyahu attempt to rehabilitate their images in a Democratic Party where Israel is now persona non grata.
As Harrison Mann—an ex-intelligence professional who resigned in protest over Gaza—recently wrote, these officials are “popping up everywhere” in the second Trump era with words of measured contrition.
Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken acknowledged in March during a speech at Harvard that the US “maybe” could have acted more quickly to force Israel to accept a ceasefire, "such that the suffering the people endured, the loss of the children, so many others, could have been averted." Jake Sullivan, Biden's former national security adviser, now says that the US should withhold weapons from Israel, a policy he opposed during his time in the White House.
Prior to Van Hollen, another top Democrat, Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii), the caucus’s chief deputy whip, made a similar plea—without naming names—that the next Democratic presidential administration cannot simply invite these same establishment figures back into positions of authority.
"I’m not into black listing anyone from future work in their area of expertise, but I do think it’s fair to want a whole new crop of foreign policy staffers in the next democratic administration," Schatz wrote on social media Sunday. "It’s not like the same 120 people are the only people who know anything."
Van Hollen has previously been more pointed in saying that figures in both parties who supported the genocide "should be held accountable for US complicity in the man-made humanitarian disaster, indiscriminate killings, and massive destruction we have witnessed in Gaza."
Adam Johnson, a journalist at The Intercept who recently wrote a book about the role of the media and the Biden administration in "selling" the genocide to the American public, criticized Van Hollen for refusing to use the term directly (instead defaulting to the less explicit phrase "ethnic cleansing").
However, Johnson said it was a good sign [that] this is becoming more and more conventional wisdom.“ He said the ”next step“ was to ”name names and make specific commitments" regarding the policies the party should and should not promote in Israel and Palestine.
Multiple consumer surveys have shown that Americans have never been more pessimistic about the state of the economy.
For the second time in a month, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett on Tuesday claimed that Americans spending more money on gasoline and other goods is a sign of strength for the US economy—rather than evidence of the Trump administration's inflationary policy decisions.
During an interview with Fox Business, Hassett tried to counter recent data showing US consumer sentiment hitting all-time lows during President Donald Trump's second term.
"The thing that I've seen when I look at credit card data," Hassett said, "is that while people have been spending more money at gas stations, they've been spending more money on everything else, which means that they're still very, very optimistic about the state of the economy, and they should be."
Hassett: "The thing I've seen is that while people have been spending more money at gas stations, they've been spending more money on everything else, which means they're still very very optimistic about the state of the economy"
(Consumer sentiment is actually at an all time… pic.twitter.com/oyWfsCGy8O
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 26, 2026
In fact, multiple consumer surveys have shown that Americans have never been more pessimistic about the state of the economy.
Last week, the University of Michigan's latest Surveys of Consumers showed consumer sentiment hitting the lowest level ever, driven primarily by concerns about the cost of living.
Gallup last week published new data showing that Americans’ economic confidence has fallen to its lowest level since October 2022, with just 16% of Americans rating the economy as excellent or good, and nearly half describing it as poor.
Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo asked Hassett about these surveys, and he said they should be dismissed because they only show negative sentiment from Democrats and independents, who combined make up the majority of US voters.
"They call it 'consumer sentiment' but I don't think those words mean what they think they mean anymore," Hassett said. "We find that basically the consumer sentiment indicator at the University of Michigan, it's just a political survey. And in fact, what the correlation between what Democrats say and what independents say... it's almost exactly perfectly correlated."
BARTIROMO: Consumer sentiment is a record low. What's the most important messaging you can put out there to help sentiment?
HASSETT: They call it 'consumer sentiment' but I don't think those words mean what they think they mean anymore. The correlation between what independents… pic.twitter.com/kAM3JyWUjD
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 26, 2026
In fact, consumer sentiment surveys taken during President Joe Biden's administration showed that independents joined with Republican voters to rate the economy significantly more poorly than Democratic voters, indicating that independents' views of the economy are not in lockstep with Democrats'.
Polling averages calculated by elections analyst Nate Silver currently show Trump's approval rating on his handling to the economy to be just 34%, with disapproval standing at 63%.
The numbers are even worse when it comes to the president's handling of inflation, where an average of 28% of Americans approve and 69% disapprove.