May, 25 2023, 03:27pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Andrea Zaccardi, Center for Biological Diversity, azaccardi@biologicaldiversity.org
Megan Backsen, Western Watersheds Project, megan@westernwatersheds.org
Court Overturns Federal Authorization to Kill 72 Grizzlies Near Yellowstone
PINEDALE, Wyoming
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) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
In Gift to Billionaires, Supreme Court Buys Vance's Argument Against Post-Watergate Campaign Finance Rule
"Americans deserve a Supreme Court that upholds our fundamental freedoms—not one that consistently sides with billionaire donors and diminishes the power of everyday citizens," said one democracy defender.
Jun 30, 2026
Just days after Vice President JD Vance suggested that if Watergate happened today, it would barely make the news, let alone end a presidency, the US Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority on Tuesday embraced the Republican's argument against a 1974 campaign finance rule that Congress passed in response to the seismic scandal.
Specifically, the court struck down restrictions on political parties coordinating campaign spending with candidates. The ruling is the result of a 2022 lawsuit filed by Vance, then a Republican Senate candidate in Ohio; Steve Chabot, then a GOP congressman from the same state; and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and its House counterpart.
The high court had previously upheld the rule in 2021, but as with the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the floodgates to unlimited campaign spending by corporations and ultrarich individuals via super political action committees (PACs), the majority cited the First Amendment to the US Constitution in its 6-3 decision in NRSC v. FEC. The three liberals dissented.
Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at the group Issue One, stressed that Tuesday's decision opening up "a new avenue for wealthy donors and special interests to buy favor with political candidates" is part of "a string of disastrous campaign finance rulings from the Roberts Court that began with Citizens United and have left our political system awash in large contributions that most Americans could never dream of giving."
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs for the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, similarly declared that "the right-wing supermajority on the Supreme Court thinks Citizens United didn't go far enough. Today they gave their blessing for billionaires to buy even more influence over the politicians who represent us."
"Americans deserve a Supreme Court that upholds our fundamental freedoms—not one that consistently sides with billionaire donors and diminishes the power of everyday citizens in our democracy," Edkins asserted, calling on Congress to add more members to the court once President Donald Trump finishes his second term in 2029.
"Congress should rein in this rogue court once Trump leaves office by enacting major reforms, including term limits, an enforceable code of ethics, and expanding the court with justices who will defend our democracy and our fundamental freedoms," he said.
In the meantime, Americans will have to contend with the new ruling in the November midterms as well as the next presidential cycle in 2028.
Along with calling out a high court that yet again "twisted the First Amendment to help billionaires and corporations buy our elections and bend our government to their will," Public Citizen democracy advocate Jon Golinger argued Tuesday that "we have to combat this outcome by increasing transparency so voters know who’s paying for election ads, empowering small donors and public matching funds, and passing the Democracy For All Amendment to empower Congress, the states, and the voters to put in place reasonable protections to guard against campaign finance corruption."
The ruling came as Public Citizen released a report documenting the historic $517 million in corporate spending on the 2026 cycle so far—money that has largely gone to "industry-prioritizing super PACs" and the Trump-aligned MAGA Inc.
Democratic Party leaders, who hope to reclaim majorities in both chambers of Congress this November, also ripped the new ruling.
In a joint statement, Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin, as well as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), who lead the party's campaign arms for each chamber, called it "a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption."
"Republicans have failed the American people with a record that has ripped away healthcare and raised costs on families, and they know voters will hold them accountable in November—which is exactly why they are rewriting the rules in an effort to drown out the will of the voters by flooding elections with more money from their billionaire backers," they said.
"Democrats are fighting back for the American people," the trio added, "and in November, voters will reject Republicans' toxic agenda and efforts to rig the system and weaken our democracy by electing a Democratic House and Senate majority."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives Call On NYC Council to Expel Member Paladino for Saying CIA Should 'Neutralize' DSA Organizers
"Yet another example of Vickie Paladino calling for the federal government to retaliate against people she disagrees with," said congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier.
Jun 30, 2026
Darializa Avila Chevalier, the progressive organizer whose primary victory over five-term Democratic Congressman Adriano Espaillat last week stunned the party's establishment, was among those calling for the expulsion of New York City Council member Vickie Paladino Tuesday night after the Republican issued "a thinly veiled call" for the government "to kill" democratic socialists.
On the social media platform X, Paladino posted an image of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) 2025-27 National Political Committee, including national co-chairs Ashik Siddique and Megan Romer, and mused that in the past, government agencies may have mobilized to kill the 27 people in the picture to stop their left-wing activities.
"There was a time in our history, not too long ago, when the CIA/FBI would’ve made sure unabashed revolutionaries like this were neutralized one way or another," said Paladino (R-19). "In fact, that was basically the entire point of having them."
Paladino appeared to be referring to the FBI's Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO), which surveilled, infiltrated, and tried to disrupt groups and movements that fought for civil rights and against the US war in Vietnam. COINTELPRO was involved in the 1969 raid in Chicago in which police killed Black Panther Party leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark.
"This is insane," said US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) after Paladino suggested the US government should use the FBI and CIA to "neutralize" DSA organizers, who are working to elect advocates for Medicare for All, universal childcare, and abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, among other increasingly popular progressive proposals.
Chevalier, a member of the DSA's New York City chapter, called for Paladino to be "expelled."
"We need public leaders who will fight for a politics of life and the council member has shown time and time again that she does not," said Chevalier.
Paladino's call to "neutralize" left-wing organizers came a day after she urged New York City police to "run over" protesters who were blocking officers on bikes. Last December, Paladino said the US should "take very seriously the need to begin the expulsion of Muslims from Western nations," and last June she suggested New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who was then a primary candidate, should be deported.
The Brooklyn Young Democrats also accused Paladino of "encouraging political violence" and called on the City Council to condemn her comments "and consider appropriate action—including expulsion."
Ryan Deitsch, co-founder of the gun control group A March for Our Lives, addressed the New York Police Department and Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, asking whether Paladino's threat raised any "red flags."
The council member's comments came less than a week after a number of progressive primary victories in New York City, including Chevalier's. The election results led centrist Democrats to quickly mobilize against democratic socialist candidates, warning that progressive contenders are “bomb-throwers, not problem solvers"—even as Mamdani secured a two-year rent freeze that will affect roughly 1 million rent-stabilized apartments, as New Yorkers and people across the country struggle with rising costs.
One DSA organizer said in response to Paladino, "Imagine if Zohran Mamdani said something about having the [Republican National Committee] chair and co-chair 'neutralized one way or another' with a secret police force."
"Expel Vickie Paladino from the NYC Council," they added, "and have her arrested and charged for making a terrorist threat."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Not Even Trying to Hide Their Brazen Corruption': Trump Sons Set to Profit From Tungsten Mining Deal
"This is the most corrupt administration in American history," said one House Democrat. "It is not close."
Jun 30, 2026
A bombshell New York Times report detailing how President Donald Trump's eldest sons stand to profit from a tungsten mining deal negotiated by their billionaire father sparked outraged calls for accountability on Monday, with Democratic lawmakers characterizing the taxpayer-funded project as yet another example of the administration's unchecked and unprecedented corruption.
"You will not believe it until you see it laid out," US Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote in response to the Times story published over the weekend. According to the newspaper, Trump and his team—including billionaire Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick—"won an agreement from the Kazakh leader to give a little-known American company access to one of the world’s largest untapped reserves of tungsten, a metal that the United States desperately needs for the production of missile warheads, fighter jets, computer chips, and other critical goods."
Ahead of the deal's completion last September, according to the Times, the Trump administration "approved preliminary applications for as much as $1.6 billion in federal financing for the American company, now called Kaz Resources, which plans to break ground on the project in rural Kazakhstan."
Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., along with Lutnick's sons Brandon and Kyle, are poised to benefit from the project. "Within weeks of the St. Regis negotiations, investors with a firm called Dominari Securities, which is housed at Trump Tower in New York and partly owned by the president’s two eldest sons... joined with other partners to take a 20% stake in a corporate entity related to the Kazakhstan project," the Times reported.
"We’ve seen 300,000 Georgians lose health coverage in the last six months because they couldn’t find room in the budget for health insurance. But they’ve got room in the budget for a tungsten mine overseas, controlled in part by Prince Don and Prince Eric," Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) said in an MS NOW appearance late Monday.
Ossoff: You’ve got the American government, controlled by Donald Trump, backing a Trump family tungsten mine in Kazakhstan with more than a billion dollars in federal commitments at the very same time that they are cutting health care, defunding hospitals and nursing homes, and… pic.twitter.com/LCZbJgLyUX
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 30, 2026
Lutnick's sons, meanwhile, "helped one of the lead investors... on the Kazakh deal raise $210 million in new capital for a related entity," potentially resulting in a multimillion-dollar boon for Cantor Fitzgerald, the investment firm overseen by Brandon and Kyle Lutnick.
"They're not even trying to hide their brazen corruption anymore," wrote US Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "President Trump and Secretary Lutnick used your tax dollars to further enrich their families from a major mining deal with Kazakhstan."
Beyer stressed that "this isn't an isolated incident." The Times found that at least "14 companies working on critical mining deals with the US government that have ties to Cantor Fitzgerald or the Trump family," including Kaz Resources, Perpetua Resources, and USA Rare Earth.
Trump's family has profited massively from his return to the White House, thanks in a large part to a crypto scheme spearheaded by the president's eldest sons. A "Trump Family Digital Grift Wealth Tracker" maintained by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee estimates that crypto projects have netted the president and his family over $2.4 billion in profits so far.
"This is the most corrupt administration in American history. It is not close," Levin said Monday, accusing Trump's Republican allies—including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)—of enabling the president as he loots federal coffers to further enrich himself and his family.
"We must keep digging, and keep asking the questions they do not want asked," Levin added. "Republicans in Congress are unwilling to lift a finger. Mike Johnson is running a protection racket."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


