

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.

BP’s Kaskida Proposal Fell Dramatically Short of Legal, Regulatory Requirements
Gulf and environmental groups sued the Trump administration today over its approval of BP’s new ultra-deepwater oil drilling project in the Gulf of Mexico. The project endangers the health of Gulf residents, ecosystems and industries like fishing and tourism.
Kaskida is BP’s first completely new oilfield approved in the Gulf since the U.K.-based company’s Deepwater Horizon disaster, which occurred 16 years ago today. BP’s infamous accident killed 11 people, wiped out horrific numbers of marine animals, and caused billions of dollars in damages to the Gulf, including by eliminating thousands of local jobs, including in fishing and tourism. BP’s Deepwater Horizon remains the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
Kaskida will be at greater depths than Deepwater Horizon, in riskier waters. BP will drill for oil as far down as six miles below the sea floor, deeper than the height of Mount Everest.
The groups are challenging the approval of BP’s development proposal because legally required information is either missing or significantly flawed. For instance, BP failed to demonstrate it has the experience, expertise and certified equipment to conduct safe drilling under extreme conditions at Kaskida’s location, where a “loss of well control” incident (which caused BP’s 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster) is six to seven times more likely compared to typical deepwater oil wells.
BP’s proposal also underestimated the volume of a worst-case oil spill by at least half-a-million barrels of oil, which the Interior Department unfortunately adopted in its environmental analysis. And BP did not show in its proposals that it will have the necessary containment capabilities in case the company needs to stop a blown-out well from spilling 4.5 million barrels of oil or more across the Gulf.
The groups — Healthy Gulf, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Habitat Recovery Project, Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity — are being represented by Earthjustice.
“The Trump administration has teed up the entire Gulf region for a Deepwater Horizon sequel with its approval of BP’s extremely risky ultra-deepwater drilling project,” said Earthjustice senior attorney Brettny Hardy. “The greenlighting of BP’s project sets a dangerously low bar for oil-and-gas companies that want to drill in our public waters. We’ll see the Trump administration in court over its unlawful and insulting approval of Kaskida.”
“Once again, BOEM has approved a deep water well in the Gulf of Mexico. Marine wildlife and communities along the Gulf coast were devastated by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill 16 years ago,” said Joanie Steinhaus, ocean program director for Turtle Island Restoration Network. “This project is a threat to our fragile ocean ecosystem, will inflame climate change and threatens the health of coastal residents. BP has not adequately demonstrated the capacity to operate and handle an oil spill in the high-pressure, high temperature conditions of this project.”
“Kaskida is emblematic of a new era in offshore oil extraction: corporate hoarding of risky, ultra-deep water leases in an attempt to monopolize the future of oil production, with little to no oversight from the Trump Administration. We, as citizens of the Gulf South, are not standing for it,” said Martha Collins, Healthy Gulf executive director. “BP has shown how they handle oil spills on this anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon disaster — their risky drilling and inexperience at this great depth will ensure their continued legacy of the Gulf never being the same again.”
“Offshore drilling is one of the riskiest kinds of oil extraction, but the Trump administration is ignoring the law to allow Big Oil CEOs to endanger coastal communities for the sake of corporate profit,” said Devorah Ancel, senior attorney at Sierra Club’s Environmental Law Program. “This permit would allow BP to develop multiple ultra-deep high-pressure wells, which is already exceptionally risky, and with BP’s track record in the Gulf, coastal ecosystems face extraordinary danger. We’re suing the Trump administration to ensure the coastal communities that would suffer the consequences of BP’s actions get their day in court.”
“It's appalling that the Trump administration has authorized this deepwater drilling project without having information critical to preventing harm to marine life,” said Rachel Mathews, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This will put Rice's whales, sea turtles and other Gulf wildlife at terrible risk. Ultra-deepwater drilling is ultra-dangerous, full stop.”
Background
The Trump administration’s approval of Kaskida follows a series of actions that prioritize the oil-and-gas industry in the Gulf at the expense of communities and ecosystems.
Last month, the White House illegally exempted federally authorized Gulf oil-and-gas exploration, development and production from needing to comply with certain requirements of the Endangered Species Act, even though no Gulf projects have been rejected due to the Act, and the oil industry is not facing any burdensome requirements under the law that are slowing or halting offshore drilling activities. The U.S. is also already producing more oil than any nation in history, is the world’s top producer of gas, and is a net exporter of both.
The administration has also proposed weakening “well control” rules developed to tighten up safety protocols in the wake of Deepwater Horizon. It has sought to roll back “financial assurance” requirements that require the weakest oil and gas companies to backstop their obligations to clean up the mess they leave behind, rather than forcing American taxpayers to foot the bill. And, it is now consolidating two federal agencies involved in offshore drilling oversight that were intentionally separated after Deepwater Horizon to root out industry influence over regulators. The White House has proposed a budget cut for the new agency of more than 30% in funding and staff that address safety and manage operations.
While such measures may boost oil industry profits, they have done little to nothing to alleviate energy prices or inflation.
In the 16 years since BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster, the oil industry has set its sights on deeper and riskier Gulf waters. In the three most recent oil-and-gas lease sales, 90% of company bids are going for deep or ultra-deepwaters, even though the likelihood of uncontrolled oil spills arising from offshore drilling operations increases exponentially with depth. Meanwhile, the oil industry is sitting on millions of acres of leases (nearly 80% of all leases the industry is in possession of) in the Gulf that haven’t begun producing oil or gas.
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) 623-5252Book bans "were part of a well-funded, politically driven campaign to suppress the stories and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals and communities," said an American Library Association leader.
"The State of America's Libraries" report "is in a very real way a report on the state of our nation," American Library Association executive director Dan Montgomery wrote in the introduction of the annual publication, released Monday.
"Unsurprisingly, then, there is much to be deeply concerned about in these pages, and much to bring hope," the ALA leader acknowledged. "Ultimately, this report can serve as a clarion call to those who love libraries and our republic."
Published at the beginning of National Library Week, the report explores a range of topics, including threats to intellectual freedom. ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) found that last year at least 4,235 unique titles were challenged—the association's term for an attempt to have a resource removed or restricted—the second-highest ever documented, just short of 2023's record.
OIF also found that at least 5,668 books were banned from libraries—66% of those challenged—and 920 books faced restrictions such as relocation or a parental permission requirement. The ALA noted that "this is both the highest number of titles censored in one year and the highest rate of challenges resulting in censorship" dating back to 1990.
"In 2025, book bans were not sparked by concerned parents, and they were not the result of local grassroots efforts," explained Sarah Lamdan, executive director of the OIF, in a statement. "They were part of a well-funded, politically driven campaign to suppress the stories and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals and communities."
Specifically, OIF found that 92% of all book censorship efforts were initiated by "pressure groups, government officials, and decision-makers," and fewer than 3% came from individual parents. Additionally, 40% of the unique titles challenged last year—1,671 works—were about the experiences of LGBTQIA+ people and people of color.
"Libraries exist to make space for every story and every lived experience," stressed ALA president Sam Helmick. "As we celebrate National Library Week, we reaffirm that libraries are places for knowledge, for access, and for all."
The most-targeted titles in 2025 were:
1. Sold by Patricia McCormick
2. The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky
3. Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe
4. Empire of Storms by Sarah J. Maas
5. (tie) Last Night at the Telegraph Club by Malinda Lo
5. (tie) Tricks by Ellen Hopkins
7. A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah J. Maas
8. (tie) A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
8. (tie) Identical by Ellen Hopkins
8. (tie) Looking for Alaska by John Green
8. (tie) Storm and Fury by Jennifer L. Armentrout
The ALA publication also features sections on library services for people who are incarcerated or in reentry, how libraries can "approach literacy in a community-driven, responsive way to meet today's rapidly evolving and growing literacy needs," and "intensified debates over access to information and shifting fiscal priorities."
The report highlights ALA's Show Up For Our Libraries campaign, launched in the face of attacks from Republican President Donald Trump—who has issued executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion, and to effectively dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services. He also fired the librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, and the register of copyrights, Shira Perlmutter.
From threats to (and victories for) intellectual freedom, to increasing services for incarcerated people, to a whirlwind of legislative and legal battles, 2025 proved pivotal for our nation's libraries.Read more in our State of America's Libraries Report: A Snapshot of 2025: https://bit.ly/3ORpvpE
[image or embed]
— American Library Association (@amlibraryassoc.bsky.social) April 20, 2026 at 9:00 AM
While the report sounds the alarm on the state of US libraries—and the nation more broadly—it also emphasizes, as Lamdan wrote in one section, that "the story of library censorship in 2025 is... not only about the challenges libraries faced, but also about the resilience of the people who stood up for them."
"Legal victories and new state-level protections emerged in several regions, reinforcing longstanding principles of intellectual freedom and reaffirming libraries' role as institutions that serve all members of their communities," she noted. "Coalitions of library workers, authors, educators, and community members successfully advocated for right to read laws in Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island that protect intellectual freedom, libraries, and library workers."
"Courts across the nation held that censorship legislation was unconstitutional," Lamdan continued. "Judges declared that laws including Florida's HB 1069 and Iowa's SF 496, which provide for the removal of books containing certain viewpoints, were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Courts also affirmed the First Amendment right to read in libraries. Voters in states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas rejected censorship-focused school and library board candidates, electing board members who promised to protect people’s right to read and learn."
She added that "2025 was also a year of coalition-building. Grassroots activists, advocacy organizations, writers, authors, publishers, teachers, parents, and library workers came together to celebrate libraries and the joy of reading."
The report was released less than three months ahead of the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence.
"As we look toward the next 250 years, the choice is ours," said Helmick. "We can let our libraries fade, viewed as charming relics of a bygone era. Or, we can choose to invest in them as a bedrock of our future. Let us decide, right now, that they are not optional. They are the very breath of a free society, and they are worth fighting for."
"A world where soft power has real and lasting impact is simply less profitable for a company like Palantir relative to a world where we blow a lot of stuff up," said one critic.
Scholars on authoritarianism are expressing alarm after tech company Palantir posted a 22-point manifesto that they say espouses a "technofascist" doctrine.
The Palantir manifesto is based on the book The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West, written by Alex Karp, co-founder and CEO of Palantir, and Nicholas Zamiska, head of corporate affairs and legal counsel to the office of the CEO at Palantir.
Among other things, the manifesto hails the creation of artificial intelligence-powered weapons as tools to enforce American "hard power" around the world; declares that "national service should be a universal duty," while suggesting the US should "seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force"; and denounces the embrace of "a vacant and hollow pluralism" on the grounds that some cultures "remain dysfunctional and regressive."
Many critics argued that the manifesto was particularly worrisome given Palantir's role in providing intelligence software to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the US military, and the Israel Defense Forces, among other entities.
In a lengthy social media post, Dutch political scientist Cas Mudde described the Palantir manifesto as "one of the scariest things I have seen in a while."
"It is a call for a world dominated by an authoritarian US, generated by AI... run by tech-surveillance companies," Mudde explained.
Mudde said the manifesto shows that European countries need to end any reliance on Palantir for security, and he recommended Democrats draw up plans to go after Palantir and other Big Tech firms upon returning to power.
"Democrats should develop an actionable agenda of democratic reform in case they return to power," Mudde wrote. "This cannot be limited to institutional reforms, but must include reining in the power and wealth of technofascist companies and individuals."
University of Michigan political scientist Donald Moynihan published an analysis of the Palantir manifesto and concluded that "on the whole, the manifesto’s vision... is that of a US government and its tech allies as dominant players, unconstrained by accountability."
In his review, Moynihan zeroed in on the manifesto's disparagement of US "soft power" as insufficient to secure American dominance in the 21st Century, and he noted that Palantir's own financial interests rest in a US hegemon that eschews diplomacy in favor of maximal military aggression.
"A world where soft power has real and lasting impact is simply less profitable for a company like Palantir relative to a world where we blow a lot of stuff up," Moynihan observed. "A world featuring an AI arms race is more profitable than a world with AI regulation. A world where Silicon Valley polices domestic crime is more profitable than a world that constrains surveillance on the public."
Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis argued that the manifesto was useful for distilling Palantir's "hideous ideology in 22 points," revealing its desire to create a blood-soaked world where "ethics is for suckers."
"Palantir works overtime to equip US Marines with killer bots that take away from the US Marines whatever remnants of ethical judgment they are left with on the battlefield," Varoufakis wrote in summarizing the company's praise of AI-powered weapons. "American society should be rendered perfectly incapable of any debate that restricts Palantir’s capacity to get the US military to eliminate any remaining opportunity to reject its software’s choice of targets."
Cheyenne MacDonald, weekend editor at tech news site Engadget, summed up the Palantir manifesto by arguing that it "reads like the ramblings of a comic book villain."
One group lamented that "Congress has failed to step up and claim its power to end these violent strikes."
The Trump administration's accelerated bombing campaign targeting boats allegedly smuggling illicit drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean claimed three more lives Sunday, bringing the total number of people killed in the illegal strikes to at least 181.
"On April 19... Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by designated terrorist organizations," US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) said in a statement.
"Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Caribbean and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations," the Florida-based command said, without providing evidence. "Three male narco-terrorists were killed during this action. No US military forces were harmed."
While the American public's attention has been focused on the US-Israeli war on Iran, the Trump administration has ramped up its boat-bombing campaign, striking at least 14 vessels so far this month compared with 12 in all of March.
There have been more than 50 such strikes since President Donald Trump launched the campaign early last September. Relatives of people killed in some of the boat strikes, as well as officials in Venezuela and Colombia, say that at least some of the victims were fishers who were not part of the illicit drug trade.
One expert said that even in cases of vessels that were involved in drug trafficking, the bombings were illegal and “the equivalent of straight-up massacring 16-year-old drug dealers on US street corners.”
A day after the US military attacked civilian boats in international waters for more than the 50th time, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday excoriated Iran's government for attacking civilian boats in international waters.
In addition to bombing boats—and seven countries since returning to office—Trump launched an invasion of Venezuela to abduct its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, who are jailed in the US awaiting trial on questionable narco-trafficking charges.
Responding to Sunday's strike, the Project on Government Oversight said on social media that the Trump administration "is still blowing up boats in Latin American waters" and lamented that "Congress has failed to step up and claim its power to end these violent strikes."
US lawmakers led by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) in the House of Representatives and Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) in the Senate tried and failed to pass war powers resolutions in the Republican-controlled Congress aimed at curbing Trump's boat strike spree.