

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.

Wyoming, industry double down on failed attempt to rewrite the law for oil and gas companies
Seventeen groups represented by Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center moved to intervene today to defend the Biden administration’s postponement of several oil and gas lease sales. A September ruling in U.S. District Court in Wyoming affirmed the administration’s ability to postpone lease sales, but the state of Wyoming and industry groups are suing in an attempt to rewrite the law to benefit fossil fuel companies.
“This is nothing more than an effort to hand over management of our public lands to the oil and gas industry,” said Michael Freeman, senior attorney with Earthjustice’s Rocky Mountain Office. “The law is clear that the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management have broad discretion to determine when, where, and whether to hold oil and gas lease sales. The administration has followed the law, but the fossil fuel industry is attempting to rewrite the law in its favor.”
In December, Wyoming and two industry trade groups challenged the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) decision not to hold lease sales during parts of 2021 and 2022. Even though the BLM has numerous lease sales scheduled in 2023 – nearly half a million acres are being considered for leasing – the plaintiffs claim the agency has an “unwritten policy” pausing leasing and want the court to order the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the BLM to hold lease sales every three months across the West. The Supreme Court and 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that the Interior Department and the BLM have broad discretion to determine the timing and scope of lease sales, including not holding them at all.
“Forcing Interior to lease without fully weighing public impacts is industry’s attempt to continue looting public resources by accumulating excess leases at bargain basement prices,” said Bob LeResche, Powder River Basin Resource Council board member and chair of Western Organization of Resource Councils. “Industry already has more than 26 million acres of public mineral estate tied up in oil and gas leases, and drillers have stockpiled more than 9,000 federal drilling permits. The industry could continue drilling and producing as normal for decades even with no new leases.”
In September U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl rejected similar claims by the fossil fuel industry and Wyoming. The judge held that the BLM had acted within its legal authority when it postponed lease sales to ensure that it fully considered potential environmental harms.
“This is an attempt to strip away the crucial role and authority of the Department of the Interior to determine how to manage public lands to best serve the public interest,” said Julia Stuble, Wyoming senior manager at The Wilderness Society. “Handing over this power to the oil and gas industry would threaten not only public lands, but also the communities that depend on them for clean air and clean water, along with efforts to transition to a just, clean energy future.”
“Last year, the court affirmed the Bureau of Land Management’s authority to postpone oil and gas lease sales in order to make certain they adhere to the law,” said Melissa Hornbein, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center. “The court should shut down Wyoming and the oil and gas industry’s transparent attempt to circumvent this basic principle.”
“Today’s filing demonstrates that we refuse to sit back and allow Big Oil to push for policies that perpetuate dirty energy,” said Hallie Templeton, legal director for Friends of the Earth. “The law is crystal clear: the federal government holds broad authority over whether, when, and how to lease public lands for oil and gas development. The energy sector should be looking to the future of justly sourced renewable energy, not pushing outdated technology that exploits people and the planet.”
“This lawsuit is just another ploy by the fossil fuel industry and its political stooges to wrest control of the public’s land for more climate-destroying profits,” said Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity. “The federal government retains broad power to manage public land for the public good, and that includes not leasing land for more fracking industrialization.”
“It is clearly within the Department of Interior’s authority to decide when and where to lease for fossil fuel development, including any pause to review the rules. It’s long overdue for the federal oil and gas program to be updated to ensure protections for public health, environment, wildlife and communities,” said Barbara Vasquez, board member of the Western Organization of Resource Councils from Cowdry, Colorado. “In my community, we are experiencing firsthand what is at stake when BLM leases public lands for oil and gas. When leases are developed, rural landscapes and communities are industrialized with the inevitable spills and emissions hazardous to public health and environment. But you don’t have to live next door. Climate change is driving our accelerating transition to renewables and calling for the managed decline of fossil fuel development on public lands. The BLM must be a leader on this change.”
“For too long BLM has blindly leased public lands to oil and gas companies without actually understanding the impacts of development,” said Peter Hart, attorney with Wilderness Workshop. “Now the agency is working to reevaluate its oil and gas management and to assess impacts, like those that new development will have on the climate. It just makes sense to pause new leasing until the program is brought into this century, and it is well within the agency’s authority.”
“Our public lands must be part of the climate solution, instead of making the problem worse,” said Connie Wilbert, director of Sierra Club Wyoming. “Stabilizing our climate for future generations means protecting public land from oil and gas development, and despite what Wyoming and the oil and gas industry claim, the Department of Interior clearly has the right to postpone lease sales.”
“The Department of the Interior needs the latitude to manage our public lands, to permanently protect treasures such as Grand Teton National Park and its surrounding landscape,” said Matt Kirby, senior director of landscape conservation for the National Parks Conservation Association. “We reject this attempt to force fossil fuel development on America’s public lands, in spite of what is in the public interest and may threaten national parks.”
Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center represent a coalition of conservation and citizen groups in the Wyoming litigation. Earthjustice represents Friends of the Earth, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, The Wilderness Society, Valley Organic Growers Association, Western Colorado Alliance, Western Watersheds Project, and Wilderness Workshop. The Western Environmental Law Center represents the Center for Biological Diversity, Citizens for a Healthy Community, Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, Food & Water Watch, Montana Environmental Information Center, Powder River Basin Resource Council, Western Organization of Resource Councils, and WildEarth Guardians.
Filings available here:
https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Conservation-Groups-MTI-23-cv-001.pdf
https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Conservation-Groups-MTI-22-cv-252.pdf
https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Conservation-Groups-MTI-22-cv-247.pdf
https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Ex.-1-Supporting-Decls.-22-cv-247.pdf
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400While Missouri's 1% would get major tax breaks, one tax policy expert said, "working families and seniors would be asked to make up the difference."
Tax policy experts warned Tuesday that passing Amendment 5 in Missouri next month could lead to middle-income residents paying hundreds of dollars more each year as wealthy households enjoy a tax cut worth tens of thousands.
If approved by voters on August 4, the legislatively referred constitutional amendment would: reduce Missouri's individual income tax, based on revenue growth, until it is eliminated; prohibit future state individual income taxes; decrease personal property and other local taxes when local revenues increase, but bar funding cuts to public schools; and limit expansions of sales and use taxes, unless they are used to lower income tax.
As The Kansas City Star detailed last week, Amendment 5 is a "top priority for Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe," and Missouri Promise PAC, the main campaign supporting it, received "$9.6 million from six organizations or groups that do not have to disclose their donors," also known as dark money.
While some of the campaign backers remain unknown to voters, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) in Washington, DC aimed to shed light on the specifics of the amendment's anticipated impact with its new policy brief.
"Amendment 5 asks Missouri voters to approve a tax shift without telling them which purchases will be taxed or how high sales taxes will rise," said ITEP analyst and brief author Eli Byerly-Duke. "What is clear is who would benefit: the wealthiest Missourians. Working families and seniors would be asked to make up the difference."
Missouri's individual income tax "makes up about 64% of the state's general fund and is the major funding source for state investments in infrastructure, schools, healthcare, public safety, and other services," the brief explains. "Low- and middle-income Missourians already pay a disproportionate share of the taxes to fund public services," and swapping income taxes for higher sales taxes "would shift even more of this responsibility from the state's highest-income individuals to teachers, farmers, truck drivers, and other middle-income Missourians."
Specifically, Byerly-Duke found that "middle-class Missourians with incomes of about $50,000 to $80,000 will pay $535 more in taxes if the personal income tax is eliminated and the sales tax expanded," all while Missouri's top 1%—or those with incomes of $689,300 and above—see an average tax break of $39,978.

The brief also highlights that "neither the Missouri Legislature nor governor has explained exactly how they will expand sales taxes if it passes. They might increase the sales tax rate, or they might expand the sales tax to include purchases of services that are not currently taxed, such as home repair and insurance, car repair and financing, personal care services such as hair or nail care, or medical services. Taxing these items will cost middle-income households a larger share of their incomes than higher-income households, but middle-income families will not get a commensurate benefit from the income tax elimination."
"For senior citizens, active-duty military families, and military retirees, the impact would be even worse," the report continues. "That's because Social Security benefits, active-duty military pay, and military pensions are already exempt from Missouri income tax, so households for whom those are the sole source of income would get no benefit from Amendment 5. For a middle-class Missourian earning between $49,100 and $79,700, this would mean an increase of $1,600 in taxes every year. Overall, seniors alone would see a net tax increase of about $335 million and each pay $365 more, on average, each year."
The brief bolsters the case for voters to say "No on 5," as Protect MO Taxpayers encourages. The "no" campaign's website warns that the amendment "hits seniors, retirees, veterans, and disabled persons hardest. Those on tight fixed incomes may not pay income tax on their limited income, but they will certainly be hurt by higher sales taxes on goods they buy every day, such as groceries, medicine, and gas, and services they use every day, from haircuts to car repairs to healthcare and housing."
"Amendment 5 hits working families hardest of all, with higher sales and use taxes estimated by the nonpartisan Missouri Budget Project to cost the average Missouri family about $500 more in taxes per year overall," Protect MO Taxpayers' site says, also pointing to concerns that it will "increase the tough economic times in rural Missouri" and "make the economic struggle even harder for small businesses."
The proposal "is a severe hit for renters who are already struggling to make ends meet," and "crushes the dreams of Missourians who want to buy or sell a home," the site adds. "Amendment 5 hits active-duty military, who do not pay state income tax but will face higher prices off the base with sales taxes that could roughly triple. This will mean less retail business and economic harm in our neighboring military host communities."
"What a complete clown show," said one critic of Hegseth's new initiative.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday elicited instant ridicule after he unveiled a new plan to offer military personnel testosterone injections.
In a video announcement, Hegseth said he was authorizing a screening program to ensure US soldiers "have the right testosterone levels" to perform at their "absolute best."
"It's well established science that, as we age, testosterone levels often drop," the US defense secretary explained. "Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, warfighters aged 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment."
The High-T Department of War. pic.twitter.com/hlAUq3j2cD
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) July 15, 2026
Personnel who are found lacking in testosterone, Hegseth continued, would get recommendations for hormone injections, though he emphasized that this would be entirely optional.
"This initiative, it's not about artificial enhancement," Hegseth emphasized. "It's about restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities."
Critics on social media responded to Hegseth's new testosterone injection plan with mockery.
Journalist Amanda Katz joked that Hegseth's plan was "literally gender-affirming care" of the kind that Hegseth halted for transgender service members last year.
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) similarly asked Hegseth if the new program means that "now y’all support gender-affirming care?"
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that the Hegseth initiative "is gender affirming care and it completely debunks all of Republicans’ attacks on trans people."
Fred Wellman, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Missouri and a veteran of the US Army, called Hegseth's initiative "the absolute dumbest thing imaginable for the secretary of defense to be focused on."
"We are literally at war and this idiot is in his office doing two camera make up videos on testosterone," Wellman added. "What a complete clown show. I’m so sorry for our poor service members who have to deal with this ridiculous man."
Attorney Bradley Moss likened the Hegseth plan to the plot of Soldier, a 1998 movie starring Kurt Russell that bombed with both critics and audiences.
Moss added, however, that Hegseth's idea appeared even "stupider" than the movie.
Attorney Will Stancil wondered if Hegseth's testosterone program might finally push some military personnel over the edge.
"Without a hint of sarcasm I think he might get himself fragged eventually," Stancil wrote.
The lone Democrat on the FCC said Brendan Carr's plan would "destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for the American families."
Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr announced Wednesday that his agency will soon vote to repeal a decades-old rule aimed at limiting consolidation among television broadcasters, a move that press freedom organizations say would be disastrous for journalism and American democracy.
Carr, a loyalist of President Donald Trump, outlined his proposal in an op-ed for the far-right online publication Breitbart, claiming his plan would "restore balance to the broadcast airwaves." But Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic FCC commissioner, warned in a fiery statement that "this unlawful effort to hand control of the public airwaves to billionaire buddies of this administration will destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for the American families who depend on local stations for news and emergency alerts."
Carr said the FCC will vote on August 6 on his proposal to eliminate a rule barring any single TV broadcaster from reaching more than 39% of US households—a limit designed to constrain television conglomerates. The FCC, which has a two-to-one Republican majority, is likely to approve the plan.
But Gomez argued in her statement on Wednesday that Carr's proposal is illegal, noting that "Congress wrote that specific [39%] number into federal law in 2004, and it did so on purpose."
"This is not the first time the FCC has tried to move on this issue," said Gomez. "In 2003, the commission raised the cap to 45% under its own authority. Congress stepped in within months, rewrote the law to set the cap at 39%, and made clear the FCC did not have the authority to change it. An FCC vote to raise the cap now would be unlawful, as it would mean doing the exact thing Congress has already said the commission cannot do."
Politico noted that Carr's proposal "marks a likely victory for the National Association of Broadcasters and its members such as Nexstar and Sinclair, which would be freer to pursue mergers that would breach the cap."
Earlier this year, the FCC approved Nexstar's $6.2 billion acquisition of rival TV company Tegna. A federal judge blocked the merger deal in April pending resolution of a legal challenge. If the merger is finalized, the new media conglomerate would reach roughly 80% of US households, blowing past the statutory 39% limit that Carr is now working to remove.
"Just as the FCC had no power to waive a congressional statute to grease the skids for Nexstar’s merger with Tegna, it has no power now to completely obliterate the limit Congress set," Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel at Free Press, said in a statement on Wednesday. "The national cap remains good policy. It promotes competition, localism, and diversity in broadcasting, incentivizing stations to preserve local newsrooms and local-journalism jobs instead of duplicating stories nationwide and passing that off as local news."
"But whatever the law’s merits may be," Wood added, "the key point is that Brendan Carr cannot undo the limit that Congress set just because he feels like it.”