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.
A polar bear keeps close to her young along the Beaufort Sea coast in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
On the 50th Anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, it’s time for us to speak up for these struggling bears and use the law to protect them.
Apparently the U.S. Congress thought it was okay to break treaty obligations when they passed a rider that mandated two oil and gas lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Biden administration is being forced to hold a second lease sale this year.
This plot to industrialize the Arctic refuge threatens a population of 500 polar bears that wander along the Beaufort Sea shore and den on the coastal plain of our largest and wildest refuge. While they can’t speak to Congress, they certainly have rights and laws that should protect them.
In January, pregnant polar bears are curled up in dens that they have dug out in snowdrifts. Soon they will give birth to one or two cubs in the dark, icy cold of winter. The newborn bears are about the size of a guinea pig and weigh only a pound. They are helpless and dependent on their mothers who nurse them for about three months in the den. Sensitive to noise and disturbance, polar bear mothers will abandon their cubs if startled by industrial noises that are associated with seismic trains and drilling rigs. The cubs will not survive if their mothers leave the den.
Polar bears have the right to survive.
Since 2008, the Southern Beaufort Sea population of threatened polar bears has been protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Over the past two decades their population has decreased by 40% because of the continued loss of sea ice habitat that they need for survival. More and more bears are denning on land because of the unstable nature of ocean ice or absence of it. Polar bears might be the largest land carnivore, but they are also a victim of climate change, showing us the catastrophic effects of our emissions each and every day they try to survive on vanishing ice floes.
In 1973 five Arctic nations signed the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears to ensure that polar bear populations remained strong and healthy. One of the provisions of this multilateral treaty is that all nations will protect critical denning habitat for polar bears. Never before has the North Slope of Alaska been more critical for denning habitat than it is now. The United States needs to honor this polar bear treaty and protect the coastal plain of the Arctic refuge, not turn it into an oil field. After all, it’s a refuge, and these bears are in serious long-term danger of extinction.
When the Arctic refuge was established in 1980, the purposes were clear: to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to, the Porcupine caribou herd, polar bears, grizzly bears, muskox, Dall sheep, wolves, wolverines, and an array of migratory birds. A second purpose requires that the Secretary of Interior fulfill international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife, including polar bears, and their habitats. The opportunity for continued subsistence uses by residents is to be provided, along with ensuring water quality and quantity.
Secretary Deb Haaland and the Biden administration have a duty to honor the original purposes of the Arctic refuge, to fulfill the obligations of the polar bear treaty, and to protect Beaufort Sea polar bears under the Endangered Species Act. Polar bears are also protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
With three laws and an international treaty that protect polar bears, and the fact that some of the Beaufort Sea bears den in a wildlife refuge, one would think these animals are safe. But not so—not if the 2017 Tax Act leasing mandate is unrightfully prioritized over these bedrock environmental laws and a long-standing international agreement.
On the 50th Anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, it’s time for us to speak up for these struggling bears and use the law to protect them. We should elevate their status from “threatened” to “endangered.” Polar bears are as awesome as the American condor and as magnificent as the humpback whale. They are loved by children all over the world and featured in stories and movies. Companies have used them in flashy animated ads.
Polar bears have the right to survive. Their plight is as clear as melting ice. The least we can do is protect the sensitive region where they give birth in the Arctic refuge and do everything we can to lower our global emissions.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Apparently the U.S. Congress thought it was okay to break treaty obligations when they passed a rider that mandated two oil and gas lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Biden administration is being forced to hold a second lease sale this year.
This plot to industrialize the Arctic refuge threatens a population of 500 polar bears that wander along the Beaufort Sea shore and den on the coastal plain of our largest and wildest refuge. While they can’t speak to Congress, they certainly have rights and laws that should protect them.
In January, pregnant polar bears are curled up in dens that they have dug out in snowdrifts. Soon they will give birth to one or two cubs in the dark, icy cold of winter. The newborn bears are about the size of a guinea pig and weigh only a pound. They are helpless and dependent on their mothers who nurse them for about three months in the den. Sensitive to noise and disturbance, polar bear mothers will abandon their cubs if startled by industrial noises that are associated with seismic trains and drilling rigs. The cubs will not survive if their mothers leave the den.
Polar bears have the right to survive.
Since 2008, the Southern Beaufort Sea population of threatened polar bears has been protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Over the past two decades their population has decreased by 40% because of the continued loss of sea ice habitat that they need for survival. More and more bears are denning on land because of the unstable nature of ocean ice or absence of it. Polar bears might be the largest land carnivore, but they are also a victim of climate change, showing us the catastrophic effects of our emissions each and every day they try to survive on vanishing ice floes.
In 1973 five Arctic nations signed the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears to ensure that polar bear populations remained strong and healthy. One of the provisions of this multilateral treaty is that all nations will protect critical denning habitat for polar bears. Never before has the North Slope of Alaska been more critical for denning habitat than it is now. The United States needs to honor this polar bear treaty and protect the coastal plain of the Arctic refuge, not turn it into an oil field. After all, it’s a refuge, and these bears are in serious long-term danger of extinction.
When the Arctic refuge was established in 1980, the purposes were clear: to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to, the Porcupine caribou herd, polar bears, grizzly bears, muskox, Dall sheep, wolves, wolverines, and an array of migratory birds. A second purpose requires that the Secretary of Interior fulfill international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife, including polar bears, and their habitats. The opportunity for continued subsistence uses by residents is to be provided, along with ensuring water quality and quantity.
Secretary Deb Haaland and the Biden administration have a duty to honor the original purposes of the Arctic refuge, to fulfill the obligations of the polar bear treaty, and to protect Beaufort Sea polar bears under the Endangered Species Act. Polar bears are also protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
With three laws and an international treaty that protect polar bears, and the fact that some of the Beaufort Sea bears den in a wildlife refuge, one would think these animals are safe. But not so—not if the 2017 Tax Act leasing mandate is unrightfully prioritized over these bedrock environmental laws and a long-standing international agreement.
On the 50th Anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, it’s time for us to speak up for these struggling bears and use the law to protect them. We should elevate their status from “threatened” to “endangered.” Polar bears are as awesome as the American condor and as magnificent as the humpback whale. They are loved by children all over the world and featured in stories and movies. Companies have used them in flashy animated ads.
Polar bears have the right to survive. Their plight is as clear as melting ice. The least we can do is protect the sensitive region where they give birth in the Arctic refuge and do everything we can to lower our global emissions.
Apparently the U.S. Congress thought it was okay to break treaty obligations when they passed a rider that mandated two oil and gas lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Biden administration is being forced to hold a second lease sale this year.
This plot to industrialize the Arctic refuge threatens a population of 500 polar bears that wander along the Beaufort Sea shore and den on the coastal plain of our largest and wildest refuge. While they can’t speak to Congress, they certainly have rights and laws that should protect them.
In January, pregnant polar bears are curled up in dens that they have dug out in snowdrifts. Soon they will give birth to one or two cubs in the dark, icy cold of winter. The newborn bears are about the size of a guinea pig and weigh only a pound. They are helpless and dependent on their mothers who nurse them for about three months in the den. Sensitive to noise and disturbance, polar bear mothers will abandon their cubs if startled by industrial noises that are associated with seismic trains and drilling rigs. The cubs will not survive if their mothers leave the den.
Polar bears have the right to survive.
Since 2008, the Southern Beaufort Sea population of threatened polar bears has been protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Over the past two decades their population has decreased by 40% because of the continued loss of sea ice habitat that they need for survival. More and more bears are denning on land because of the unstable nature of ocean ice or absence of it. Polar bears might be the largest land carnivore, but they are also a victim of climate change, showing us the catastrophic effects of our emissions each and every day they try to survive on vanishing ice floes.
In 1973 five Arctic nations signed the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears to ensure that polar bear populations remained strong and healthy. One of the provisions of this multilateral treaty is that all nations will protect critical denning habitat for polar bears. Never before has the North Slope of Alaska been more critical for denning habitat than it is now. The United States needs to honor this polar bear treaty and protect the coastal plain of the Arctic refuge, not turn it into an oil field. After all, it’s a refuge, and these bears are in serious long-term danger of extinction.
When the Arctic refuge was established in 1980, the purposes were clear: to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to, the Porcupine caribou herd, polar bears, grizzly bears, muskox, Dall sheep, wolves, wolverines, and an array of migratory birds. A second purpose requires that the Secretary of Interior fulfill international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife, including polar bears, and their habitats. The opportunity for continued subsistence uses by residents is to be provided, along with ensuring water quality and quantity.
Secretary Deb Haaland and the Biden administration have a duty to honor the original purposes of the Arctic refuge, to fulfill the obligations of the polar bear treaty, and to protect Beaufort Sea polar bears under the Endangered Species Act. Polar bears are also protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
With three laws and an international treaty that protect polar bears, and the fact that some of the Beaufort Sea bears den in a wildlife refuge, one would think these animals are safe. But not so—not if the 2017 Tax Act leasing mandate is unrightfully prioritized over these bedrock environmental laws and a long-standing international agreement.
On the 50th Anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, it’s time for us to speak up for these struggling bears and use the law to protect them. We should elevate their status from “threatened” to “endangered.” Polar bears are as awesome as the American condor and as magnificent as the humpback whale. They are loved by children all over the world and featured in stories and movies. Companies have used them in flashy animated ads.
Polar bears have the right to survive. Their plight is as clear as melting ice. The least we can do is protect the sensitive region where they give birth in the Arctic refuge and do everything we can to lower our global emissions.
Rep. Greg Casar accused Trump and his Republican allies of "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen."
Progressives rallied across the country on Saturday to protest against US President Donald Trump's attempts to get Republican-run state legislatures to redraw their maps to benefit GOP candidates in the 2026 midterm elections.
The anchor rally for the nationwide "Fight the Trump Takeover" protests was held in Austin, Texas, where Republicans in the state are poised to become the first in the nation to redraw their maps at the president's behest.
Progressives in the Lone Star State capital rallied against Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for breaking with historical precedent by carrying out congressional redistricting in the middle of the decade. Independent experts have estimated that the Texas gerrymandering alone could yield the GOP five additional seats in the US House of Representatives.
Speaking before a boisterous crowd of thousands of people, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) charged that the Texas GOP was drawing up "districts set up to elect a Trump minion" in next year's midterms. However, Doggett also said that progressives should still try to compete in these districts, whose residents voted for Trump in the 2024 election but who also have histories of supporting Democratic candidates.
"Next year, [Trump is] not going to be on the ballot to draw the MAGA vote," said Doggett. "Is there anyone here who believes that we ought to abandon any of these redrawn districts and surrender them to Trump?"
Leonard Aguilar, the secretary-treasurer of Texas AFL-CIO, attacked Abbott for doing the president's bidding even as people in central Texas are still struggling in the aftermath of the deadly floods last month that killed at least 136 people.
"It's time for Gov. Abbott to cut the bullshit," he said. "We need help now but he's working at the behest of the president, on behalf of Trump... He's letting Trump take over Texas!"
Aguilar also speculated that Trump is fixated on having Texas redraw its maps because he "knows he's in trouble and he wants to change the rules midstream."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) went through a litany of grievances against Trump and the Republican Party, ranging from the Texas redistricting plan, to hardline immigration policies, to the massive GOP budget package passed last month that is projected to kick 17 million Americans off of Medicaid.
However, Casar also said that he felt hope watching how people in Austin were fighting back against Trump and his policies.
"I'm proud that our city is fighting," he said. "I'm proud of the grit that we have even when the odds are stacked against us. The only answer to oligarchy is organization."
Casar went on to accuse Trump and Republicans or "trying to pull off the most corrupt bargain I've ever seen," and then added that "as they try to kick us off our healthcare, as they try to rig this election, we're not going to let them!"
Saturday's protests are being done in partnership with several prominent progressive groups, including Indivisible, MoveOn, Human Rights Campaign, Public Citizen, and the Communication Workers of America. Some Texas-specific groups—including Texas Freedom Network, Texas AFL-CIO, and Texas for All—are also partners in the protest.
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."