

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.

Stephanie Kurose,
skurose@biologicaldiversity.org
The Biden administration today proposed revisions to Trump-era regulations that severely weakened protections for our nation’s most imperiled animals and plants, keeping in place some of the most significant rollbacks to the Endangered Species Act in the law’s 50-year history.
“This disappointing proposal fails to protect our nation’s endangered plants and animals. It restores pieces of the Endangered Species Act but keeps many of the disastrous Trump-era provisions in place,” said Stephanie Kurose, senior endangered species policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “If federal officials truly wanted to stem the extinction crisis, they’d restore the full power of the Act and overhaul the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, we need bold, transformative action, not more policy half measures.”
Today’s proposal restores protections for threatened species and includes a provision that prohibits consideration of economic impacts when deciding to protect species. It also removes barriers to designate critical habitat for climate-impacted species and to designate unoccupied areas as critical habitat.
The proposal, however, retains a number of harmful provisions governing the responsibility of federal agencies to avoid jeopardizing protected species or adversely modifying their critical habitat. In particular, it retains a definition of adverse modification that requires federal actions to affect species’ critical habitat “as a whole” before real habitat protections are put in place.
This is especially harmful for species like the northern spotted owl, polar bear or gulf sturgeon that have large critical habitat designations but are still at risk of extinction. For example, the Forest Service wouldn’t be required to mitigate harm caused by clearcutting old-growth trees in spotted owl habitat unless the logging project affected the owls’ entire 9 million-acre critical habitat.
“The administration’s proposal does nothing to address the fact that endangered species are dying a death by a thousand cuts,” said Kurose. “This is a major omission that shortchanges not only species like the spotted owl, but also the ecosystems they and all of us depend on for our survival. There’s just no way to ensure the survival and recovery of plants and animals without protecting the places they live.”
The proposal also lets federal agencies off the hook for past harms to endangered species from things like dam or highway construction by deeming these projects part of the “environmental baseline.” It also absolves the agencies for much of the damage caused by interrelated actions they facilitate, such as urban growth from highway expansion or increased global warming from emissions related to federal oil and gas leasing.
Last year, the Center filed a legal petition urging the wildlife agencies to undo the Trump-era rollbacks to the Act and pushing for ambitious new regulatory safeguards that strengthen all aspects of the law. Today’s proposal offers no new protections for endangered and threatened species.
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) 623-5252A mysterious gambler raked in over $400,000 in profit from a series of bets placed shortly before the Trump administration bombed Venezuela and abducted its president.
A suspiciously timed and lucrative bet on the US abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro over the weekend has prompted speculation that the wager was placed with inside knowledge, possibly by someone within the Trump administration or its orbit.
The yet-unknown gambler placed a series of bets totaling nearly $34,000 between late December and January 3—the day of the US assault on Venezuela. All of the bets, placed on the cryptocurrency-based prediction platform Polymarket, were related to the probability of Maduro being removed from power and the US attacking Venezuela before the end of January.
The bettor, who went by username Burdensome-Mix on Polymarket, reportedly netted over $400,000 from the wagers in just 24 hours.
"Seems pretty suspicious!" wrote researcher Tyson Brody. "[US Defense Secretary] Pete Hegseth making some beer money on the side?"
NBC News reported Tuesday that the bettor "has already cashed out their Polymarket winnings in Solana, a type of cryptocurrency, through a major American exchange, with no indication they have tried to hide or launder the funds." The outlet added that "if any regulators or law enforcement went looking for the bettor, they’d likely have little difficulty locating them."
It was public knowledge that US President Donald Trump—who had said Maduro's days as the leader of Venezuela's government were "numbered"—was considering a direct attack on the South American country, and his administration had amassed a large military force in the region in recent months in preparation for such an assault.
But there was no publicly available information on the timing of any possible attack. The New York Times, which reportedly learned of the US assault and abduction operation shortly before it began, later revealed that Trump "had authorized the US military to go ahead as early as December 25, but left the precise timing to Pentagon officials and Special Operations planners to ensure that the attacking force was ready, and that conditions on the ground were optimal."
Trump gave the final go-ahead order late Friday night, according to the Times, and the attack began in the early hours of Saturday morning, Venezuela time.
Analysts have warned that the spread of prediction platforms like Polymarket—where gamblers can bet on a dizzying range of scenarios, including the timing of the second coming of Jesus Christ—could raise the likelihood of insiders trying to profit from confidential information.
It also increases the risk that people in positions of power and influence will try to push policy in a certain direction in order to cash in on their bets, said Demand Progress executive director Sean Vitka.
"And questions related to whether or not, and when, military action might be undertaken are especially vulnerable to such manipulation because the president frequently moves with discretion over the timing and (legally or not) without notice to the public or Congress," Vitka told The American Prospect.
"Our country is not something that can be annexed or taken over simply because someone wishes to do so," said Greenland Premier Orla Joelsen.
Leaders of several European nations on Tuesday released a joint statement pushing back on US President Donald Trump's threat to seize Greenland from Denmark.
The statement, which was signed by the heads of state of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Denmark, and the UK, emphasized that security in the Arctic region must be "achieved collectively, in conjunction with NATO allies including the United States, by upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty and the inviolability of borders."
While noting that the US is an "essential partner" in the NATO alliance, the leaders nonetheless said that "Greenland belongs to its people" and "it is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland."
In a separate statement released Tuesday, Greenland Premier Orla Joelsen thanked the European leaders for speaking up in defense of his people's independence and emphasized that Greenland is not an imperial trophy to be won by the US president.
"Our country is not something that can be annexed or taken over simply because someone wishes to do so," Joelsen said. "At a time when the president of the United States has once again stated that the United States is very serious about Greenland, this support from our allies in NATO is both important and unequivocal."
Trump and his allies have been making more aggressive statements in recent days about taking Greenland, which Trump has called essential to US national security.
Top Trump aide Stephen Miller on Monday night refused to rule out using military force to take Greenland during a Monday interview with CNN, and further claimed that "the future of the free world depends on America to be able to assert ourselves and our interests without an apology."
The Trump administration's bellicose rhetoric, combined with its illegal invasion of Venezuela and abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, has reportedly convinced European leaders to take the threat of US imperialism on their territories seriously.
Danish sources who spoke with The Atlantic on Monday said that the Venezuela invasion was a wakeup call showing them that Trump is deadly serious about seizing Greenland against the will of its own people.
"Western diplomats and security officials we spoke with were apoplectic," reported The Atlantic. "One told us that Denmark and its Nordic neighbors have been taking the president’s statements seriously for a year but have remained uncertain about how to interpret them and, especially, how to respond."
Nathalie Tocci, director of the Istituto Affari Internazionali in Rome, argued in a Tuesday column for The Guardian that European leaders' refusal to condemn Trump's ouster of Maduro would only make it more likely that he would attack their territories as well in the coming months.
"Even if European leaders are being more vocal in support of Denmark, their ambiguity over Venezuela signals submission to Trump," Tocci argued. "And the more European countries act as colonies, unable and unwilling to stand up to Trump, the more they’ll be treated as such."
Trump's threats against Greenland have drawn widespread condemnation from elected Democrats, as well as from Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who wrote in a Tuesday post on X that it was "embarrassing" that he even had to address Trump's decision to menace a NATO ally.
"Denigrating our allies serves no purpose and there is no up side," he said. "It weakens us by diminishing trust between friends, and Russia and China love it. So... stop the stupid 'we want Greenland BS.'"
The White House adviser offered "a very good definition of imperialism," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
"Belligerent" was how one Democratic lawmaker described a diatribe given by top White House adviser Stephen Miller on CNN Monday evening regarding the Trump administration's right to take over Venezuela—or any other country—if doing so is in the supposed interest of the US.
To Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), however, Miller was simply providing viewers with "a very good definition of imperialism" as he described the worldview the administration is operating under as it takes control of Venezuela and eyes other countries, including Greenland, that it believes it can and should invade.
"This is what imperialism is all about," Sanders told CNN's Jake Tapper. "And I suspect that people all over the world are saying, ‘Wow, we’re going back to where we were 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, where the big, powerful countries were exploiting poorer countries for their natural resources.'"
The senator spoke to Tapper shortly after Miller's interview, in which the news anchor asked whether President Donald Trump would support holding an election in Venezuela days after the US military bombed the country and abducted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.
Miller refused to directly engage with the question, saying only that it would be "absurd and preposterous" for the US to install Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado as the leader of the country, before asking Tapper to "give [him] the floor" and allow him to explain the White House's view on foreign policy.
"The United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere," said Miller. "We're a superpower and under President Trump we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It is absurd that we would allow a nation in our backyard to become the supplier of resources to our adversaries but not to us."
Instead of "demanding that elections be held" in Venezuela, he added, "the future of the free world depends on America to be able to assert ourselves and our interests without an apology."
MILLER: The US is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere. We're a superpower and under President Trump we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It's absurd that we would allow a nation in our backyard to become the supplier of… pic.twitter.com/wXK2UxnqUj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 5, 2026
The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that Venezuela "stole" oil from the United States. The country is believed to have the largest oil reserves in the world, and the government nationalized its petroleum industry in 1976, including projects that had been run by US-based ExxonMobil. The last privately run oil operations were nationalized in 2007 by then-President Hugo Chavez.
Miller offered one of the most explicit explanations of the White House's view yet: that "sovereign countries don’t get sovereignty if the US wants their resources," as Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) translated in a social media post.
Moulton called Miller's tirade "genuinely unhinged" and "a disturbing window into how this administration thinks about the world."
Miller's remarks followed a similarly blunt statement at a UN Security Council emergency meeting by US Ambassador Michael Waltz.
"You cannot continue to have the largest energy reserves in the world under the control of adversaries of the United States," said Waltz.
Miller's description of the White House's current view on foreign policy followed threats from Trump against countries including Colombia, Mexico, and Greenland, and further comments suggested that the administration could soon move to take control of the latter country—even though it is part of the kingdom of Denmark, which along with the US is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
"Greenland should be part of the United States," said Miller. "The president has been very clear about that, that is the formal position of the US government."
Miller: “Greenland has a population of 30,000 people. By what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? The United States is the power of NATO. Greenland should be part of the United States.”
“Nobody is going to fight the US militarily over the future of Greenland.” pic.twitter.com/d7i2kMXFMD
— Dori Toribio (@DoriToribio) January 5, 2026
He dismissed the idea that the takeover of Greenland, home to about 56,000 people, would involve a military operation—though Trump has said he would not rule out using force—and said that "nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland."
The vast island is strategically located in the Arctic Circle and has largely untapped reserves of rare-earth minerals.
Danish and Greenlandic officials have condemned Trump's latest threats this week, with Denmark's prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, warning that, in accordance with the NATO treaty, "everything would come to an end" if the US attacks another NATO country.
“The international community as we know it, democratic rules of the game, NATO, the world’s strongest defensive alliance—all of that would collapse if one NATO country chose to attack another," she told Danish news channel Live News on Monday.
The Danish government called an emergency meeting of its Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday to discuss "the kingdom's relationship with the United States."
On CNN, Sanders noted that as Trump sets his sights on controlling oil reserves in Venezuela and resources in Greenland, people across the president's own country are struggling under rising costs and financial insecurity.
"Maybe instead of trying to run Venezuela," said Sanders, "the president might try to do a better job running the United States of America."