

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.

Andrea Zaccardi, Center for Biological Diversity, azaccardi@biologicaldiversity.org
Megan Backsen, Western Watersheds Project, megan@westernwatersheds.org
The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service’s authorization of the killing of up to 72 grizzly bears on public land just outside of Yellowstone National Park violated federal law.
Meant to accommodate private grazing operations in grizzly habitat, the 2019 grazing authorization would have allowed an unlimited percentage of females to be killed in response to livestock conflict, despite the significance of breeding bears to the species’ recovery. But now the court has remanded the decision to the agencies to fix the legal deficiencies.
“We’re hopeful that in reconsidering their flawed analysis, the agencies will spare dozens of female grizzly bears previously sentenced to death by the Trump administration,” said Andrea Zaccardi, legal director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s carnivore conservation program. “This ruling confirms that federal officials can’t sidestep the law to allow grizzly bears to be killed on public lands to appease the livestock industry.”
The court found that among other issues, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s failure to consider limiting the number of female grizzly bears that could be killed was arbitrary and capricious because killing too many females could jeopardize the grizzly bear population in the project area. In so holding the court acknowledged the importance of protecting female grizzly bears for grizzly bear recovery.
“Today’s decision is a victory not only for endangered grizzly bears but for all wildlife in the Upper Green River Area,” said Megan Backsen, Tenth Circuit attorney for WWP. “The Court recognized that the Forest Service cannot ignore its own experts, particularly when those experts warn that a decision will harm those species that depend on intact ecosystems for their very survival.”
The grazing program area, approved by the U.S. Forest Service in 2019, encompasses the headwaters of the Green and Gros Ventre rivers and parts of two designated wilderness areas in the Bridger-Teton National Forest. The area provides important habitat for Yellowstone grizzly bears — listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act — and other imperiled fish and wildlife species.
The challenged decision authorized the killing of up to 72 grizzly bears over the 10-year life of the reauthorized grazing program. The decision placed no limits on killing female bears or cubs, even though females with cubs live where the proposed killing would be permitted.
The judges also ruled that the Forest Service failed to follow its own Forest Plan requirements regarding wildlife habitat protections for migratory birds. Some 96% of the lands approved for livestock is zoned in the Forest Plan for a wildlife protection emphasis instead.
“Throughout this case, the Forest Service has tried to run away from its wildlife habitat commitments made to the public in its Forest Plan,” said Jonathan Ratner, Western Watersheds Project’s Wyoming Office Director. We are pleased to see that the court understands that the promises made in the Forest Plan are made to the American people and the wildlife that lives on these lands.“, the Forest Service has always ignored its Forest Plan and treated it like a livestock feedlot.
Dr. John Carter of Yellowstone to Uintas Connection said, “We have collected data within the allotments that shows how much degradation has been caused by livestock.
We have provided reports to the Forest Service but they feel they can simply ignore the data. We hope and expect that the Forest Service starts putting its duties to land and the American people ahead of the interests of a few ranchers”
“Before grizzly bears can be recovered and delisted, we need safeguards in place to ensure that the breeding population gets adequate protections from the depredations of the livestock industry,” said Mike Garrity, Executive Director of the Alliance Wild Rockies. “We are thrilled that the court sent the agencies back to the drawing board.”
The Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Western Watersheds Project, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and Yellowstone to Uintas Connection filed two separate suits on March 31, 2020 challenging the agencies’ decisions. Although the suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court of Columbia, the lawsuit was later transferred to the U.S. District Court of Wyoming. The U.S. District Court of Wyoming issued a ruling upholding the agencies’ decisions on May 17, 2022. Today’s opinion overturns that decision.
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"We want this terror to stop," said Rep. Ilhan Omar, deputy chair of the CPC.
The leadership of the nearly 100-member Congressional Progressive Caucus said Tuesday that it will "oppose all funding" for US immigration enforcement in any upcoming government appropriations bills without substantial reforms, a position laid out as federal agents unleashed by President Donald Trump continued to terrorize communities across the country.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), deputy chair of the CPC, said during a press conference alongside other caucus members that "demanding accountability is not radical." Omar represents the district where 37-year-old Renee Good was shot and killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Jonathan Ross last week.
"Calling for systematic reforms is not extreme," Omar continued. "This is the bare minimum required to restore safety and justice back to our communities."
Omar, a frequent target of Trump's bigotry, said the CPC's official position is to "oppose all funding for immigration enforcement in any appropriation bills until meaningful reforms are enacted to end militarized policing practices."
"We cannot and we should not continue to fund agencies that operate with impunity, that escalate violence, and that undermine the very freedoms this country claims to uphold," the congresswoman said. "ICE has no place in terrorizing Minneapolis or any American community."
The CPC's press conference marked an intensification of a fight over Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding that erupted in the wake of Good's killing in Minneapolis last week. ICE, which is part of DHS, currently has a larger budget than that of a dozen national militaries, thanks to a massive infusion of funding approved by congressional Republicans and Donald Trump last summer.
NBC News reported Tuesday that "Democratic opposition has already frozen a DHS measure that was slated to be added to an appropriations package getting a Senate vote this week."
"Congress may have to fall back on a stopgap bill to prevent a funding lapse for DHS," the outlet added. "That’s where things get trickier for Democrats. If House Republicans pass a continuing resolution on their own, which would keep DHS running on autopilot, Senate Democrats would again have to choose between accepting it and forcing a partial shutdown."
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democratic appropriator in the House, said Tuesday that she does "not support increasing funding for ICE" and is "looking at policy riders in the homeland security funding bill to rein in ICE."
"ICE is terrorizing our communities, and I have called on masked, armed ICE agents to leave our towns," DeLauro added.
An Economist/YouGov poll released this week found that, for the first time, more Americans support abolishing ICE entirely (46%) than oppose it (43%). Democratic support for abolishing ICE is currently at 77%, according to the survey.
In an appearance on MS NOW, Omar said that "we want this terror to stop."
"People are angry. People are frustrated. They're confused. They don't understand why this chaos is necessary," said Omar. "And they certainly do not want this level of militarized ICE and border agents just roaming the streets, harassing and terrorizing their neighbors."
"Senate Republicans must pass this bipartisan legislation today, end the Republican healthcare crisis, and deliver immediate relief to American families," said one campaigner.
A week away from open enrollment ending in most states, 17 GOP members of the US House of Representatives helped Democrats pass a bill to restore lapsed Affordable Care Act premium tax credits—but senators have declined to act with that same urgency, and the deadline for many Americans to make coverage decisions for 2026 is Thursday.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), a lead negotiator for a bipartisan Senate group working on a compromise for the expired ACA subsidies, told Politico on Tuesday that the legislative text will no longer be ready this week. Instead, it's now expected the last week of January—after not only the upper chamber's upcoming recess, but also when millions of people nationwide will have already had to choose a plan on an ACA marketplace or to forgo health insurance coverage due to surging premiums.
In response to the reporting, Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal highlighted in a statement that "millions of Americans are paying sky-high health insurance premiums after congressional Republicans ended the healthcare tax cuts working families depend on. A three-year extension has already cleared the House with bipartisan support."
"Any delay needlessly sticks millions of working people with higher costs; There is no excuse," Tal added. "Senate Republicans must pass this bipartisan legislation today, end the Republican healthcare crisis, and deliver immediate relief to American families."
Tal, Democratic lawmakers, labor leaders, and other supporters of reviving the ACA subsidies had similarly demanded Senate action following last Thursday's 230-196 vote—which came after multiple Republican lawmakers broke with party leadership and signed a Democratic discharge petition that enabled the bill's backers to bypass House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).
Moreno's remarks on the Senate group's "punt," as Politico put it, came after Axios reported that congressional Democratic leadership on Sunday sent Republicans a proposal to renew ACA subsidies for three years, "paired with extensions of other expiring health programs."
Axios also noted that President Donald Trump told reporters late Sunday that he "might" veto a subsidy extension. Whether any will reach his desk, though, remains unclear—and even if one does, it is increasingly likely it'll be after Americans have to make choices about 2026 coverage. Amid the uncertainty over future ACA subsidies, Illinois and Pennsylvania extended the enrollment period through February 1.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said Monday that nearly 22.8 million people have signed up for 2026 individual market health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplaces—around 19.9 million returning consumers and 2.8 million new ones.
The nonprofit Community Catalyst pointed out that the overall enrollment figure is down by about 1.4 million from last year. Michelle Sternthal, the advocacy group's interim senior director of policy and strategy, said that "these numbers confirm what people across the country are already feeling: We are in a healthcare affordability crisis."
"When Congress failed to extend the enhanced premium tax credits, premiums spiked overnight—from $921 to $1,998, or $121 to $373. Families are facing impossible choices," Sternthal stressed in her Tuesday statement.
"These outcomes aren't random. They are the direct result of policy decisions that have weakened our healthcare system over time," she continued. "Coverage works. Stability matters. Healthcare is not a luxury—it is shared infrastructure. When people are healthy, our communities and our economy are stronger. Congress created this crisis, and Congress has the power—and the responsibility—to act now."
The drawn-out debate over the ACA tax credits on Capitol Hill has spurred broader critiques of the US healthcare system, including fresh demands for Medicare for All. Even before the subsidies expired at the end of last year, the typical working US family spent $3,960 on healthcare annually, including premiums and out-of-pocket costs, according to research released Tuesday by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).
"Ten percent of working families paid more than $14,800 on insurance premiums and other out-of-pocket healthcare expenses," says the CEPR report, which is based on 2024 data. "And more than 1 of every 8 workers (13.3%) are in families that spent greater than 10% of their annual income on healthcare."
The publication warns that "healthcare costs are rising faster than inflation, and future increases in premiums, ACA costs, and Medicaid cutbacks will worsen the burden."
“Big Oil is openly asking Congress for a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card because fossil fuel companies are desperate to avoid facing the evidence of their climate lies in court," said one critic.
As Big Oil and its Republican defenders vow to fight a flurry of state and local lawsuits seeking to hold the industry accountable for its role causing catastrophic global heating and lying to the public about it, one climate defender on Monday urged congressional lawmakers to reject a so-called "liability shield" aimed at protecting fossil fuel companies from litigation.
With more than two dozen state and local climate lawsuits against Big Oil ongoing from Maine to Hawaii—and a successful outcome for youth litigants in Montana in 2023—Republicans from President Donald Trump down to state lawmakers are scrambling to find ways to stem the tide of legal action against one of their biggest sources of financial support.
In June, Republican attorneys general in 16 states asked the Trump administration for protections from climate lawsuits. The AGs suggested modeling such policy on a 2005 law protecting gun manufacturers from litigation when their products are used in crimes. As a result, no gun company accused of negligence has ever been brought to trial. Gun control advocates have been trying to repeal the law for years.
“Big Oil is openly asking Congress for a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card because fossil fuel companies are desperate to avoid facing the evidence of their climate lies in court," Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), said Tuesday in a statement. "Congress must make clear that any proposal to strip Americans of their right to hold corporations accountable for the damage they cause when they lie to the public about the harms of their products will be dead on arrival."
The CCI statement came in response to an announcement by the American Petroleum Institute—the nation's biggest oil lobby—that fighting state climate lawsuits is one of its top priorities for 2026. API has been named as a defendant in several state climate accountability and deception lawsuits.
🚨 Big Oil wants to take away your right to sue fossil fuel companies for the harm they cause.No matter your politics, we should all agree that no industry should be above the law. Say it with us: 📣 NO IMMUNITY FOR BIG OIL 📣
[image or embed]
— Center for Climate Integrity (@climateintegrity.org) January 13, 2026 at 11:03 AM
As CCI explained earlier:
Communities across the country are paying nearly $1 trillion per year for damages from extreme heat, floods, wildfires, and rising seas and other extreme weather events that fossil fuel-driven climate change is making more intense, deadly, and destructive. Major oil and gas companies knew decades ago that their products would fuel these climate damages, but they orchestrated a Big Tobacco-style campaign of deception to mislead the public and protect their profits. More than 1 in 4 Americans now live in a state or community taking Big Oil companies to court to hold them accountable for this deception and make polluters pay for the harm they have caused.
"A legal shield for Big Oil could forever shut the courthouse doors for all Americans, forcing the rising bill for climate change onto taxpayers, and setting a harmful legal precedent that protects corporations instead of communities," CCI added. "No industry should be above the law—especially one with a documented history of deceiving the public. Congress must oppose the fossil fuel industry’s lobbying efforts and keep the courthouse doors open for communities seeking accountability."
CCI's advocacy against a liability shield for Big Oil follows last year's plea by nearly 200 nonprofit organizations to Democratic leaders in Congress asking them to oppose such legislation.
"Our communities across the country are suffering grave threats to our public health, safety, and economic security as a result of Big Oil’s climate deception and pollution," the groups said. "Governments, residents, businesses, and others must have access to legal and legislative remedies in order to hold fossil fuel companies accountable, seek justice, and make polluters pay."