

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, Center for Biological Diversity, kmonsell@biologicaldiversity.org
Ruling In Favor of Environmental Groups Highlights Concerns About Endangered Whales
National and community-based environmental groups celebrated a legal victory on Tuesday when a federal district court judge overturned an offshore oil and gas lease sale in Alaska’s Cook Inlet because the federal government violated the law when holding the sale.
The Center for Biological Diversity and Natural Resources Defense Council filed the lawsuit together with Earthjustice, on behalf of Cook Inletkeeper, Kachemak Bay Conservation Society, and Alaska Community Action on Toxics.
Lease Sale 258, held by the Department of the Interior in December 2022, opened nearly a million acres of federal waters in Southcentral Alaska to the fossil fuel industry, potentially locking in decades of future oil and gas drilling.
The Interior Department originally canceled Lease Sale 258 in May 2022, but then announced it would move ahead in August after the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. Though that legislation spurred efforts to address climate change, it included a provision reviving the Cook Inlet lease sale (along with two others in the Gulf of Mexico: Lease Sales 259 and 261, which are being litigated).
While Lease Sale 258 only resulted in one bid for a relatively small tract, the areas auctioned off to bidder Hilcorp overlapped with critical habitat for federally endangered marine mammals. Cook Inlet is home to beluga whales and sea otters protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Tuesday’s ruling noted that, among other things, the Department of the Interior failed to fully consider the lease sale’s cumulative impacts on beluga whales, as well as the issue of blaring vessel noise. Belugas use sound to “see” in a process known as echolocation, which supports behaviors such as hunting, avoiding obstacles, and finding each other, so noise impacts can threaten whales’ survival.
Following the ruling, Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management must conduct a supplemental environmental review and determine based on this new review whether or not to add protections or redo the lease sale. The ruling also suspends Hilcorp’s lease while this process is underway. Since the start of 2024 alone, Hilcorp has been the subject of four different enforcement actions from the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
In addition to endangered marine life, Cook Inlet also supports thriving subsistence, commercial and recreational fisheries and a multi-faceted tourist industry, fed by visitors from around the world drawn by the region’s unparalleled natural beauty. The Inlet is also essential for Alaska Native communities, who have stewarded these lands and waters for millennia.
Alaska is experiencing more extreme consequences of climate change than the continental United States. Coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, melting sea ice, and fishery collapse are all ramifications of the worsening global climate crisis, which will only intensify with new oil and gas drilling operations.
Partnering organizations released the following statements in response to this favorable decision:
“Today’s legal victory is a win for Alaska communities, threatened beluga whales, and future generations who will face a hotter planet,” said Earthjustice attorney Carole Holley. “We’re celebrating the fact that this destructive lease sale has been sent back to the drawing board, and we will continue to push for a transition away from fossil fuels and toward a brighter and healthier energy future.”
“This is a huge victory for Cook Inlet belugas. I hope this decision makes it clear to federal officials that they can’t keep ignoring the ways offshore drilling threatens these critically endangered whales,” said Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s reckless to keep destroying wildlife, ocean habitat and our climate for oil and gas drilling and it needs to stop. Interior must do its job and protect our country’s irreplaceable public lands, waters and wildlife from industrial havoc.”
“We are glad that the court recognizes the long-term harm that this lease sale would cause to our precious marine environment, belugas, and coastal communities,” said Pamela Miller, executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. “This is the time for restoration and renewal, and for a swift transition to renewable energy, not more offshore oil and gas lease sales which will only perpetuate harm. Given the history of the oil corporations’ illegal dumping of toxic waste, spills, noise, and chronic damage, we must ensure that Interior fulfills its responsibility to protect our fisheries, wildlife, and health of our communities.”
“This ruling helps protect Cook Inlet’s vibrant ecosystem, which is home to endangered beluga whales, and supports productive fishing grounds and culturally important sites for Alaska Natives,” said Irene Gutierrez, senior attorney for NRDC. “The region should not be sacrificed to decades of oil drilling. Interior must fully consider the range of potential harms when it carries out the court’s ruling.”
“Today’s victory in Cook Inlet is a triumph of community resilience and environmental stewardship,” said Loren Barrett, co-executive director at Cook Inletkeeper. “Our coastal communities have long resisted oil and gas leasing, understanding the irreversible impacts of industrial disasters and the need to preserve Cook Inlet’s habitat, fisheries, and natural beauty. By overturning Lease Sale 258, the court has recognized the critical importance of safeguarding Cook Inlet's dynamic ecosystem, and an essential piece of habitat required to ensure the continued survival of the iconic Cook Inlet beluga whale.”
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"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said one critic.
Some critics of the Trump administration are reacting with horror to revelations that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been serving as the de facto ruler of Venezuela.
According to a Saturday report in The New York Times, Rubio for the last several months has been acting informally as the "viceroy" of Venezuela ever since its recognized president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted by the American military in January and brought to the US to face charges related to "narco-terrorism."
The Times' sources revealed that Rubio "effectively controls Venezuela’s finances, the distribution of its natural resources, and its government" and "is deeply involved in the country’s day-to-day operations," while maintaining regular contact with acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez.
Under current arrangements, the US Treasury Department takes in revenue from Venezuela's exports, including its petroleum, and then disperses the money back to the country through its private banks with strict conditions set by Rubio over what it can be spent on.
In explaining the system, the Times likened it to "parents handing out allowances to children," adding that it gives Rubio "immense leverage over... Rodríguez, who depends on the money to pay workers and prop up the national currency."
Elizabeth Saunders, professor of political science at Columbia University, described Rubio's power over Venezuela as "insane," as well as "derelict, unconscionable, and impeachable."
"The secretary of state's time is scarce, valuable, and not outsourcable," Saunders emphasized.
Orlando J. Pérez, professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas at Dallas, said the Times report made a mockery of Rubio's professed claims to want to bring democracy back to Venezuela.
"It appears Rubio has transformed from democracy promotion warrior," Pérez commented, "to transactional realpolitik operative!"
Kenneth Roth, former executive director at Human Rights Watch, wrote that US control over Venezuela appeared similar to the kind of imperial power wielded by European nations in the 19th Century.
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said Roth, "with Marco Rubio as the viceroy and Washington controlling the country’s oil revenue and dictating major foreign and domestic policies. Democracy has been relegated to the distant future."
Bradley Simpson, historian at the University of Connecticut, also saw the current US arrangement with Venezuela as a return to overt imperialism.
"We are literally back in the Dollar Diplomacy days of the 1910s," Simpson wrote, "when the United States invaded countries and took over their financial systems and ran them as effective colonies. Flagrantly illegal, enormously corrupt. Where is the organization of American states or UN in denouncing this?"
"These hoodlums come in with machine guns—M4, an American-made machine gun—and they detain us. They block off the road."
Rep. Ro Khanna this week was detained by a group of Israeli settlers whom he described as "hoodlums... with machine guns" while making a visit to a Palestinian village in the occupied West Bank.
In an interview with Reuters published on Saturday, Khanna (D-Calif.) said he and his tour group were surrounded by armed settlers as they were traveling through the West Bank on Wednesday.
"We were at a village that Israeli settlers had destroyed, they had destroyed the school, they had destroyed that village, and we were just looking at it," said Khanna. "And these hoodlums come in with machine guns—M4, an American-made machine gun—and they detain us. They block off the road."
The California Democrat said that the settlers called in members of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to help them deal with him and his group.
"The IDF is on their side," Khanna remarked, "not on the side of the Americans."
Cameron Kasky, an aide to Khanna, told Reuters that the group was held for over an hour before officials whom he believed to be police intervened and secured their release.
The IDF told Reuters that both military troops and police officers dispersed the settlers who had set up a roadblock near the small Palestinian village of Khirbet Zanuta.
Khanna wasn't the only American to have a run-in with Israeli settlers this week, as CNN reported that four settlers attacked groups of journalists, including CNN reporters and crew, who were traveling through an area north of the Palestinian city of Ramallah on Saturday.
As the journalists were driving, four settlers blocked off the road with their cars and began attacking the reporters' vehicles with wooden clubs and metal rods.
"The settlers then began to jump on the vehicle behind CNN's—carrying another group of journalists—and smashed the windshield of that vehicle," the network reported. "Another group of settlers tried to block a separate exit route before chasing the journalists towards the town of Sinjil."
Israeli police arrived on the scene and arrested four settlers who were allegedly responsible for the attacks, CNN reported.
"The Israel Police and the IDF view any manifestation of violence or causing damage to property very seriously," the Israeli officers said after the arrests, "especially when it concerns media personnel performing their work."
Israeli settlers for years have carried out violent attacks on Palestinians living in the West Bank, and witnesses have regularly described IDF soldiers at the scene either standing by as the attacks occur or even actively helping the attackers.
In an interview with CNN on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that claims about settler violence have been "blown up beyond belief," describing attacks as being carried out by a small number of "juvenile delinquents."
"This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
The Trump administration on Friday escalated its war with the press by subpoenaing several reporters at The New York Times days after the paper published a story on Wednesday that detailed security concerns about the luxury jet the Qatari government gave to President Donald Trump.
According to the Times, the subpoenas are attempting to force reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday next week, a move that the paper describes as an "extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations."
The issued subpoenas do not specifically name the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet as the reason for the grand jury probe, although they were given to all four journalists—Tyler Pager, Julian Barnes, Eric Schmitt, and Eric Lipton—who reported the story.
Additionally, the Times noted, a senior official at the FBI had asked the paper to hold off publishing its story on the jet before it came out on Wednesday, citing unspecified national security concerns about its content.
David McCraw, the top attorney representing the Times' newsroom, denounced the subpoenas as an attack on the freedom of the press.
"The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects," said McGraw. “This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
It is highly uncommon for government investigators to subpoena journalists when they are probing national security leaks, as such actions are generally seen as having a chilling effect on reporters’ ability to gather information.
Rick Stengel, former under secretary of state for President Barack Obama, said that the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet, whose security upgrades are being financed with US tax dollars, is completely within the scope of constitutional protections for press freedom.
"The reporting that the Times journalists have been subpoenaed for is exactly the kind of journalism the First Amendment is designed to protect: matters involving national security and taxpayer dollars," wrote Stengel in a Saturday social media post. "Reporting that embarrasses a president is protected speech."
Fox News chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin also denounced the Trump administration for trying to drag reporters into a grand jury investigation.
"This action by the US government to subpoena reporters for reporting legitimate news on security concerns about Air Force One should alarm every American," Griffin wrote.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, accused the Trump administration of abusing government power not to defend national security, but to protect the president from personal humiliation.
"We've long said that when the government claims it needs to investigate journalists to protect national security, it really means its own reputational security," said Stern. "This is as clear an example as you can get. The administration's embarrassment that it reportedly charged taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit a flying bribe that still isn't secure enough for hostile times does not supersede the need for a free and independent press."
This is the second time in recent weeks that the Trump administration has tried to subpoena reporters to compel their testimony in grand jury investigations.
In June, the US Department of Justice issued subpoenas for national security reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal related to national security leaks.
Subpoenas against both news organizations were withdrawn after they issued legal challenges in sealed filings.