

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) 623-5252A new poll from Politico found that only 5% of respondents disagree that there is too much money in politics, and 61% think billionaires have too much influence on elections.
A significant majority of Americans agree that there is too much money in the US political system and that the super rich have more influence over election outcomes than ordinary citizens, a poll published by Politico on Saturday found.
The poll comes after outside spending in the 2024 election broke records, with richest-man-alive Elon Musk pouring over $250 million into President Donald Trump's campaign.
"In 2024, the maximum individual donation per candidate was $3,300. Elon Musk donated $277 million to elect Trump because of the loopholes Citizens United created for billionaires to buy elections," Campaign for New York Health executive director Melanie D'Arrigo wrote on social media Sunday in response to the results.
"Elon has increased his wealth by $235 billion during Trump’s second term, and was allowed to gut the federal agencies overseeing and investigating him," she continued. "Big money in politics is a direct threat to democracy and the working class."
“This type of astronomical spending corrodes people’s faith in our system of government."
According to the poll, 72% of Americans agree that there is too much money in politics, while only 5% disagree. There is broad partisan consensus on this issue, with 80% of 2024 Kamala Harris voters and 77% of 2024 Trump voters also agreeing.
At the same time, 61% think that billionaires have too much influence on US politics. There was a larger partisan gap on this issue, with 75% of Harris voters and 55% of Trump voters agreeing
A total of 67% of respondents think that there is too much special interest money specifically in elections, and 53% see it as a form of corruption that should be restricted. There is also bipartisan support for the idea that special interest money is corruption, with 61% of Harris voters and 56% of Trump voters backing this position.
There is slightly more concern about money in politics from Democratic voters, with 49% of 2024 Harris voters stating it could outright buy elections compared with 33% of Trump voters.
In response to the results, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) argued that the Democratic Party should do more to take advantage of this concern.
"Dems shy away from the issue, despite voting 100% to get rid of dark money when given the chance. (Republicans 100% defend dark money.)," he wrote on social media.
The Democratic National Committee passed a resolution condemning dark money election spending last month, but some lawmakers including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have called for it to go further by banning dark money contributions to Democratic primaries all together.
Election spending skyrocketed in the US following the Supreme Court's controversial decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. Dark money spending increased dramatically, reaching $1.9 billion in 2024.
“This type of astronomical spending corrodes people’s faith in our system of government, and I think people are really looking for changes to take some of this outrageous amount of spending and rein it in,” Michael Beckel, the Money in Politics reform director at Issue One, told Politico.
The pair were among the at least 24 people killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon on Saturday despite a nominal ceasefire.
An Israeli drone killed a Syrian laborer and his 12-year-old daughter in a double-tap attack in southern Lebanon on Saturday, in what the Lebanon Health Ministry described as part of a continuing pattern “of grave violations of International Humanitarian Law.”
The man was riding with his daughter on a motorcycle in Nabatiyeh when the pair were targeted by three drone strikes, according to the ministry.
The Associated Press reported:
The ministry said that after the initial strike, the man and his daughter managed to move away from the site only to be attacked again by the drone instantly killing the man. The girl then moved about 100 meters (yards) away and was hit again by the drone after she had been already wounded.
The girl was taken to the hospital, but did not survive her injuries, according to Lebanon's National News Agency.
"What does terrorism mean to you? If it’s [not] double-tap killings of paramedics, journalists, and today a 12 year old girl, then what is it?"
“The Ministry of Public Health denounces this barbaric targeting and the deliberate violence against civilians and children in Lebanon,” the ministry said, as AP reported.
The father and daughter were among a total of at least 24 people in Lebanon who were killed by Israeli strikes on Saturday, according to Al Jazeera.
One strike on the town of al-Saksakieh killed seven, among them a child. The strike also wounded 15 people including three children.
The bombings continue despite a nominal ceasefire between Lebanon and Hezbollah that went into effect April 17. However, Israel has killed almost 500 people in Lebanon since April 16, raising the death toll since its March 2 invasion to over 2,750.
War correspondent Courtney Schellekens shared the story of the 12-year-old girl and her father in a video on social media on Saturday.
What does terrorism mean to you? If it’s no double-tap killings of paramedics, journalists, and today a 12 year old girl, then what is it?
Westerners, where is your humanity?
Cameraman: @aliezzedine7 pic.twitter.com/ntXIwz4s6H
— courtneybonneauimages (@cbonneauimages) May 9, 2026
"What does terrorism mean to you? If it’s [not] double-tap killings of paramedics, journalists, and today a 12 year old girl, then what is it?" she wrote above the video.
At the conclusion of the video itself, she continued the same line of questioning.
"To my Western followers, I really want you to think critically about the definition of terrorism, to whom it gets applied and who does it benefit," she said. "Because where I've been sitting for the last 18 months, this mass murder and mass, you know, look at this," she gestured to the ruble behind her, "this mass destruction, this ethnic cleansing of south Lebanon, this looks a lot like terrorism to me."
"Drug suspects should be arrested and prosecuted, not summarily executed," a human rights expert said.
The Trump administration continued its illegal bombing of small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific on Friday, killing two and leaving one survivor in its third such strike in five days.
US Southern Command announced the attack on social media, claiming that "intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations."
"Under [President Donald] Trump's illegal orders, the US military conducted its third boat strike in five days against supposed drug smugglers, killing at least two. Each of these is a murder. Drug suspects should be arrested and prosecuted, not summarily executed," former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth wrote on social media Saturday in response to the news.
Friday's strike marks the 57th by the Trump administration and raises the death toll from the boat-strike campaign, which experts say is illegal even if every boat targeted is ferrying drugs, to 192.
"Really absurdly, there’s been no impact on flows of drugs toward the United States."
"What do you call a US citizen who smuggles drugs, SOUTHCOM? A 'narco-terrorist'?" social media user Andrew Marinelli said in response to the Southern Command announcement. "If a US citizen [allegedly] drove drugs into Canada and they blew him away with a drone strike, would you accept it?"
The administration has also not provided evidence for its claims that the boats belong to drug traffickers, and relatives of the victims say at least some of those killed were simply on the water to fish.
Friday's strike was notable in that it left behind a survivor and that US Southern Command said it had activated the US Coast Guard to conduct a search and rescue operation.
The announcement may reflect a response to backlash after news broke last year that, in the administration's first such strike, commanders had ordered a vessel bombed twice when it became clear there were survivors, in keeping with Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth's directive to "kill everybody."
Despite scrutiny, the campaign has continued and even escalated in the past few weeks. There have been three such bombings since the beginning of May, according to The Intercept: One on May 4 in the Caribbean that killed two, one on May 5 in the Pacific that killed three, and the Pacific strike on May 8 that killed two. The reported survivor remains missing.
While the Trump administration claims the strikes have dramatically reduced the flow of illegal drugs into the US, evidence reveals this is not the case, according to an Intercept analysis published May 4.
For example, Trump claimed that drugs entering the US by sea had decreased by 97%, but the administration's own data contradicts this claim, retired Rear Adm. William Baumgartner told The Intercept.
Adam Isacson, the director for defense oversight at human rights group Washington Office on Latin America, said, "Really absurdly, there’s been no impact on flows of drugs toward the United States,” noting that Customs and Border Protection seized 6,000 pounds more cocaine at all US borders in the seven months following the strikes than in the seven months before.
As Sanho Tree, who directs the Institute for Policy Studies' Drug Policy Project, put it, "It wouldn’t be the first time this administration just made up something out of whole cloth."