

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.

Bonnie Gestring, Earthworks, bgestring@earthworksaction.org
Marc Fink, Center for Biological Diversity, mfink@biologicaldiversity.org
Elizabeth Manning, Earthjustice, emanning@earthjustice.org
Grace Nolan, Bristol Bay Defense Fund Coalition, grace@team-arc.com
EPA decision protects Bristol Bay waters from becoming a dumping ground for mine waste; effectively rebuffing the threat of Pebble Mine
Today, Earthjustice joins with a broad and unified coalition of Tribes, Bristol Bay residents, commercial and sport fishers, environmental organizations, businesses, and many others to celebrate the Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Determination protecting the Bristol Bay watershed under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act.
The EPA’s Final Determination is a hard-won victory by all those who have been fighting for decades to stop the Pebble Mine project. It follows an earlier decision by the Army Corps of Engineers to deny a key permit to Pebble Mine. Collectively, these decisions effectively spell victory in the decades-long fight to protect Bristol Bay from Pebble Mine.
Earthjustice is honored to stand with Tribes and other regional leaders – the United Tribes of Bristol Bay, Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, Bristol Bay Native Association, Bristol Bay Native Corporation, local Tribes and municipalities, village corporations, non-governmental organizations, nonprofits and more – in thanking the EPA and the Biden Administration for listening to concerns raised by local and national stakeholders and taking this important step to protect this critical watershed and people it supports.
Two out of three Alaskans oppose the Pebble Mine and support these protections. If today’s Final Determination is challenged in court, as expected, those plaintiffs will not be representing the wishes of most Alaskans or many Americans.
Today’s decision is an important step in preserving Bristol Bay and its residents’ way of life. It will now be more important than ever for elected leaders to continue fighting to ensure Bristol Bay and its ecosystem will thrive and provide for future generations.
The following statements from Earthjustice and our clients were issued in response to today’s news. For additional quotes from the Bristol Bay region or to be connected with the Bristol Bay Defense Fund coalition, please contact Grace Nolan at grace@team-arc.com.
Bonnie Gestring, Northwest Program Director, Earthworks:
“We’re thrilled to see the Environmental Protection Agency fulfill its commitment to the people of Alaska to provide enduring protection for Bristol Bay, its economy, its salmon, and its people from the dangerous and destructive Pebble Mine. Congratulations to the Biden administration and EPA for seeing this landmark decision through. We are proud to stand in support of the Bristol Bay Tribes and commercial fishermen whose lives and livelihoods depend on this thriving fishery.”
Marc Fink, Senior Attorney, Center for Biological Diversity:
“We applaud the EPA for taking this critical step to protect the irreplaceable ecosystems of Alaska’s Bristol Bay. From salmon and grizzly bears to the rare Iliamna Lake seals, a remarkable array of wildlife depends on this watershed. This should be the final nail in the coffin of the disastrous Pebble Mine proposal, but we’ll keep fighting until this watershed is permanently protected.”
Erin Colón, Senior Attorney, Earthjustice:
“After a fierce, decades-long battle waged by the people of Bristol Bay and so many others, EPA today followed the law and science to establish enduring protections for the Bristol Bay watershed under the Clean Water Act. This is a major victory worth celebrating, but we cannot rest until even more permanent protections are in place. The Bristol Bay watershed is one of the world’s great ecosystems, and the way of life and the abundant future it supports is worth the fight. Earthjustice is committed to continuing to represent those who oppose unlawful and destructive mining projects like the proposed Pebble Mine.”
Background
Pebble Mine, a vast, open-pit copper and gold mine proposed in prime salmon habitat in the Bristol Bay watershed, has for decades threatened the way of life for the region’s residents and all others who depend on its abundant salmon populations. Today’s Final Clean Water Act Determination issued by the EPA should spell the end of the Pebble Mine proposal.
Years of litigation by Earthjustice and others on behalf of both regional and national clients have supported the coalition’s efforts to stop the Pebble Mine.
In 2010, six Bristol Bay Tribes asked the EPA to protect the Bristol Bay watershed from the Pebble Mine. An initial assessment released by the EPA in 2014 concluded a mine could have unacceptable impacts. Later that year, the EPA issued a Proposed Determination restricting the use of parts of the watershed to dispose of material from mining.
Unfortunately, Pebble Mine developers challenged those actions in three lawsuits against the EPA, asking the courts to throw out both the assessment and the Proposed Determination. Although those lawsuits did not succeed, EPA was temporarily blocked from finalizing the proposed protections.
Then in 2017, under the Trump administration, the EPA settled with the Pebble developers, agreeing to consider withdrawing its prior determination. Again, tens of thousands of concerned members of the public told the EPA to protect the Bristol Bay watershed. EPA reversed course and withdrew its prior determination to put protections in place.
In 2019, Earthjustice, representing Earthworks, joined Tribes, Tribal organizations, and many other Bristol Bay champions in a lawsuit challenging that withdrawal. Ultimately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that the withdrawal was unlawful and reinstated the agency’s Clean Water Act decision process, clearing the way for EPA to follow the extensive scientific record supporting the need for protections. Earthjustice filed comments on behalf of Earthworks, Friends of the Earth U.S., and the Center for Biological Diversity urging EPA to finalize robust protections. Today’s Final Determination marks the culmination of that process.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — the federal agency leading the process to permit the Pebble Mine — denied the key permit for Pebble Mine on Nov. 25, 2020. The Corps decision highlighted many of the concerns that opponents of the project, including Earthjustice, have pointed out all along. That denial is under appeal by the Pebble Partnership.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.
"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."
"The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
A group of Democratic members of the US Congress on Friday condemned President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers' attempts to influence the results of Colombia's upcoming presidential runoff, calling it an "insult" to the Colombian people's sovereignty.
"We see actions by US President Donald Trump and other members of Congress to endorse, advocate for, or otherwise tip the scales to a particular candidate as detrimental to the democratic rights of the Colombian people," said the lawmakers, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
The statement came days after Trump publicly injected himself into Colombia's presidential contest by endorsing far-right candidate Abelardo De La Espriella, a 47-year-old defense lawyer who has pledged to "disembowel the left."
“The results of this Election are very important to the future of Colombia and its relationship to the United States,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier this month. “Because of his tremendous accomplishments in life, and his political support for me, personally, it is my Honor to give Abelardo my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
The US president said that if De la Espriella wins, he "will have the total support and strength of the United States behind him."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that "the implicit threat in Trump’s endorsement of De la Espriella is that Colombians will be punished—through reduced aid, tariffs, sanctions, etc.—if they vote for a political leader not backed by the United States."
Two Republican lawmakers, Rep. María Salazar of Florida and Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, have also endorsed De la Espriella. The New York Times reported that "before Mr. Trump posted his full-throated endorsement of Mr. De La Espriella, Mr. Moreno held a call with reporters in which he said US officials had 'vetted' Mr. De La Espriella and found him to be 'impeccable.'"
De la Espriella will face leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, an ally of incumbent President Gustavo Petro, in the June 21 presidential runoff.
Petro has criticized his US counterpart for meddling in Colombia's presidential race, urging Trump in a recent social media post to "not intervene in the campaign and allow the people of Colombia to decide freely."
"Whoever wins will maintain the friendship of more than two centuries between Colombia and the US," Petro added.
Earlier this week, Petro planned to meet with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during the Colombian leader's trip to the US, but "the Trump administration effectively nixed it in a behind-the-scenes effort," The Washington Post reported.
"The Colombian government quietly called off the event following a meeting between US and Colombian officials in Bogotá in which State Department officials made clear that this week’s engagement was unacceptable, a move Colombian officials interpreted as a threat to arrest Petro on site if he proceeded," the newspaper revealed. "A State Department official told The Washington Post that the visit would violate visa restrictions the US imposed against Petro following his comments last year criticizing US support of Israel’s war in Gaza and imploring US soldiers to disobey presidential orders to kill."