SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
center for biological diversity
'Historic Victory': Judge Blocks Trump's Big Bend Border Construction—For Now
"This fight is far from over," said one campaigner. "We won’t rest until Big Bend’s environmental protections are fully restored and the illegal waiver that allowed so much destruction is gone for good.”
Oct 02, 2026
A federal judge in El Paso on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from continuing construction of border barriers, roads, and other infrastructure across the Big Bend region, a win for environmentalists, landowners, and other Texans from across the political spectrum who are united in their opposition to the project.
US District Judge Kathleen Cardone—who was appointed by former President George W. Bush—granted a preliminary injunction sought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and other plaintiffs.
"The court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of at least one of the claims in [their] suit, that there is a likelihood that they will suffer serious, irreparable harm without an injunction, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in their favor," Cardone wrote in her two-page decision.
BIG WIN FOR BIG BEND!! A federal judge just issued an emergency injunction to block border barrier and road construction across the #BigBend region. The injunction will remain in place while the court considers a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s waiver to fast-track construction.
— Center for Biological Diversity (@biologicaldiversity.org) October 2, 2026 at 2:18 PM
Cardone's order immediately prohibits the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies from building “border barrier or related infrastructure” or engaging in “any construction or ground-disturbing activities” in the Big Bend Sector until they comply with applicable laws. It also stays the effect of three Trump administration waivers that had allowed officials to bypass numerous federal protections.
“This is a historic victory for Big Bend and everyone who loves this wild corner of Texas,” said Laiken Jordahl, CBD's national public lands advocate. “No administration has the right to destroy a crown-jewel national park for political theater."
"With a federal court ordering the bulldozers to stop, Big Bend gets to breathe," Jordahl added. "But this fight is far from over. We won’t rest until Big Bend’s environmental protections are fully restored and the illegal waiver that allowed so much destruction is gone for good.”
Clara Bensen, director of communications for No Big Bend Wall and a board member of Conserve Big Bend, also welcomed the ruling.
"For months we've watched the federal government send bulldozers into a national park that belongs to all of us. Today a federal judge told them to stop," she said in a statement.
"Since we learned the Trump administration planned to seize public and private land and destroy the Big Bend region as we know it, this community has come together across the political aisle to fight back," Bensen added. "The government tried to ignore the law to build unnecessary border infrastructure, and the court made clear it can't. This is a victory, but we are not letting our guard down."
🚨 BREAKING NEWS: A federal judge just HALTED the destruction of Big Bend.This is a massive victory for the landowners, local communities, and everyday Texans who stood up to protect one of our state's greatest treasures.The fight isn't over, but today, the people won.
[image or embed]
— Clayton Tucker (@claytontuckertx.com) October 2, 2026 at 2:16 PM
The ruling comes after contractors began bulldozing roads and building other infrastructure in and around Big Bend National Park in August, including near Santa Elena Canyon and Mariscal Mountain. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) temporarily halted construction on August 17, but that pause expired earlier this week.
The Trump administration has argued that the project—which initially included plans for a 30-foot-high reinforced steel wall—is necessary to achieve what it calls “operational control” of the border. Plaintiffs in the case challenged the administration's determination under Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that the region is an area of “high illegal entry,” noting that the government's claim is contradicted by its own statistics.
The Big Bend Sector is among the least-trafficked portions of the southern border, accounting for roughly a quarter of the international boundary's length, but no more than 3% of annual migrant apprehensions. The sector recorded just 1.3% of total border apprehensions in 2025, according to CBP data.
Plaintiffs in the case argued that the administration unlawfully used extraordinary powers to waive environmental and other laws, including the Endangered Species Act, National Park Service Organic Act, and National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Indigenous groups alleged violations of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act.
At Friday's hearing, Rio Grande river guide and landowner Danny William Miller described the prospect of a barrier cutting across his property and blocking access to the river as “a bullet to the head," according to The Big Bend Sentinel.
Miller testified that once the landscape is altered, it cannot simply be restored. His guide work, he said, would become “a tour of the military-industrial complex, rather than a tour of the wilderness.”
Another local resident, Bill Guerra-Addington, told the court, “They’re taking the river away from us, and it’s devastating.”
Friday's injunction is temporary. The underlying lawsuit will continue, and the broader legal battle over Trump's Big Bend border project—and the administration's legally dubious waivers—remains unresolved. On Wednesday, US District Judge Orlando Garcia, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, rejected a request from an Indigenous group and business owners for a temporary restraining order in one of several separate cases seeking to halt work on the project.
Still, National Parks Conservation Association president and CEO Tiernan Sittenfeld called Cardone's order “a victory for Big Bend and for all of America’s national parks.”
"While national park advocates are grateful for this halt to border construction in Big Bend, the devastating toll it has already taken on this national park must be studied and remediated," she said. "The administration must repair the damage it has done to the beautiful, fragile desert ecosystems that make Big Bend National Park one of America’s most iconic places."
“The administration’s border plan at Big Bend has faced strong bipartisan opposition from local landowners, experienced local borderland sheriffs, and conservationists alike," Sittenfeld added. "Big Bend is no place for border barriers. It’s time for the administration to come to the table with the border communities that know Big Bend best, repair the damage from this ill-conceived project, and find new solutions.”
s
Keep ReadingShow Less
Conservation Groups Ramp Up Fight Against 'Despicable' Trump Assault on Endangered Species
One campaigner warned that the administration's effort "to legalize most killings of endangered wildlife would essentially mean open season on species already on the brink of annihilation."
Oct 01, 2026
Conservation groups that sued this summer over President Donald Trump's administration rescinding the regulatory definition of "harm" in the Endangered Species Act updated their legal challenge on Thursday after yet another attack on the landmark law.
The coalition's supplemental complaint explains to a federal court in Seattle that since the lawsuit was first filed in July, administrative leaders have directed various agencies to interpret the ESA to mean that only intentionally killing or wounding a protected species is illegal—a shift that critics condemned as "an all-out war on America's wildlife."
As the "harm" rescission took effect on September 14, US Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik issued a related memorandum with that interpretation—effectively allowing "incidental" killing. John Luce, general counsel at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, sent the same directive to eight sections of NOAA.
These memos "violate the plain language and overarching purpose of the ESA; they also lack any reasoned basis, are arbitrary and capricious, and failed to comply with applicable notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements," the new filing argues, citing the Administrative Procedure Act. The coalition is asking the court to vacate the memos and bar the agencies from using their interpretations of the 1973 law.
"This despicable effort to legalize most killings of endangered wildlife would essentially mean open season on species already on the brink of annihilation," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species co-director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a Thursday statement. "It's the most serious attack on imperiled animals since the Endangered Species Act was passed more than 50 years ago."
"Without protection against the daily assaults of our modern world, Florida manatees, spotted owls, snowy plovers, and so many other animals that bring color to our world won't stand a chance," he warned, noting that "habitat destruction is the single biggest cause of species endangerment and extinction" in the United States and beyond.
Greenwald added that "with this destruction, the perils faced by plants and animals have grown exponentially. Such peril doesn't come down the barrel of a gun, but it's still a deadly threat, and the Endangered Species Act can and must protect our imperiled wildlife from this kind of careless killing."
In addition to the center, the coalition behind the case includes Columbia Riverkeeper, Conservation Law Foundation, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Wild Swan, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club, Swan View Coalition, and WildEarth Guardians, with legal representation by Earthjustice.
After the memos were exposed last month, Earthjustice attorney Ben Levitan declared that "the government's new legal position is a prescription for extinction."
"It says that as long as you claim you didn't mean to kill an endangered species, the law can't and won't stop you," he stressed. "That's ridiculous—and a totally illegal, active misreading of the Endangered Species Act. We'll see the Trump administration in court about this."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hundreds of Groups and Lawmakers Demand Trump Not Give Private Developer Part of Yosemite
"The federal government should be protecting our national parks, not parceling them out behind closed doors to benefit the wealthy and politically connected," said one campaigner.
Sep 15, 2026
Hundreds of advocacy groups and members of Congress on Tuesday called on President Donald Trump's administration to reject a proposal to hand over part of Yosemite National Park in California to a private developer.
The Washington Sun—formerly known as NOTUS—revealed late last month that federal staffers were under political pressure to keep working on a possible land swap for a quarter-mile strip of the famed park with "a company that, through a web of limited liability companies, is operated by real-estate developer and investment firm Kingsbarn Realty Capital."
California's Democratic US senators, Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, partnered with two other Democrats from the state, House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman and Congressman Jim Costa, to spearhead a Tuesday letter to Trump's interior secretary, Doug Burgum, about the future of the park.
Yosemite "is a cornerstone of the National Park System and is one of California's crown jewels," wrote the bipartisan group of over 150 lawmakers. "We are extremely concerned that the Department of the Interior is considering selling off portions of the park to private development, and we strongly oppose the proposed land transfer."
According to the Sun, the developer owns 83 acres west of the park and wants "to build a short road connecting the property to one of Yosemite's central thoroughfares," providing "the land exceptionally rare private access to a park that is otherwise almost entirely buffered by national forests."
The lawmakers noted similar previous efforts that were blocked in court and argued that "at its core, this proposal appears to provide a private benefit at the expense of land that belongs to all Americans."
"This transaction does not seek to expand public access to Yosemite, improve visitor services, or address transportation deficiencies in park access," they emphasized. "Rather, this land exchange seeks to merely cut down on driving time for a select few on private property. Any decision to relinquish public land to private ownership should be supported by a clear and compelling public benefit, not merely the economic interests of a private party."
"We were alarmed that the Department submitted to Congress a proposal to use money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) authority to facilitate this exchange. That fund exists to acquire and protect public lands for the benefit of the American public—not sell them off to corporate developers," the lawmakers wrote, noting that a Senate subcommittee has not agreed to move forward.
The lawmakers also pointed out that "in response to inquiries from Congress, the department indicated that it has not identified any land to be exchanged for the parcel of Yosemite National Park that the department is seeking to sell to the private developer. This gives further credence to the notion that this exchange is not being done in the public interest, but rather solely to benefit a private developer."
"Public lands belong in public hands. Protection of public lands is a bipartisan issue, overwhelmingly supported by the American people from all walks of life," they concluded. "We oppose any effort to privatize, sell off, give away, or otherwise undermine the continued existence of public lands, in Yosemite or across the country. We ask that you honor congressional objections and abandon this effort to sell off a piece of Yosemite National Park."
Separately on Tuesday, a coalition of over 150 advocacy organizations—led by the Center of Biological Diversity—sent a similar letter to Burgum.
"Trump wants to carve off a chunk of Yosemite so a private equity firm can turn it into a playground for billionaires," said Laiken Jordahl, national public lands advocate at the center. "The federal government should be protecting our national parks, not parceling them out behind closed doors to benefit the wealthy and politically connected. If Yosemite can be chopped apart, no national park in America is safe."
The center was joined by groups including the American River Conservancy, California Environmental Justice Coalition, Greenpeace USA, Public Citizen, Public Lands Conservancy, Save Our Parks, Sierra Club, and Yosemite Rivers Alliance.
The coalition described Yosemite as "sacrosanct—the cradle of American conservation, and the first land the federal government protected purely for its scenic value," and warnd that "ceding national park land to a developer sets a dangerous precedent: America's parks are for sale to whomever has the money and power to take them."
Highlighting that "Kingsbarn CEO Jeff Pori is a donor to Trump's campaign... and the firm is represented by politically connected lawyer Lanny Davis," the groups stressed that "deals like this undercut the public's faith in government."
"In your confirmation hearing," the coalition reminded Burgum, "you said 'we need to support and protect every single inch' of our national parks. Yosemite is invaluable, and no portion of it should end up on Kingsbarn's ledger. We expect you to keep your promise and to abide by your statements to Congress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Unconscionable, Immoral, and Illegal’: Lawsuit Targets Trump Approval of Cancer-Causing Forever Chemical
“While everyone’s distracted by the Trump administration’s erratic actions on the world stage, it keeps approving dangerous forever pesticides right here on our own soil."
Aug 31, 2026
Environmental groups have sued the Trump administration, alleging the Environmental Protection Agency approved a potentially cancer-causing "forever chemical" for use as an herbicide without fully assessing the risk.
The petition was filed Friday in the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit by the Center for Food Safety, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network North America, who asked the court to throw out the EPA's June 30 approval of trifludimoxazin and six products containing it for use on a wide range of crops including corn, wheat, soybeans, and apples.
Trifludimoxazin is part of the family of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, synthetic chemicals with strong carbon-fluorine bonds that can take years to fully break down, earning them the nickname "forever chemicals."
The trifludimoxazin was initially approved in 2021 during the Biden administration. But the company agreed to stop selling the product the following year after environmental groups sued, citing its potential to cause cancer and harm to threatened and endangered fish. But the Trump EPA last year proposed registering it again for widespread use and issued a final approval in June.
The groups argue that the EPA approved the use of trifludimoxazin without accounting for evidence that the pesticide could cause cancer and harm wildlife and ecosystems.
The EPA itself has acknowledged that the chemical could harm many endangered and threatened species, including posing chronic risks to bees and other invertebrates. Meanwhile, rodent studies have found that at high doses, the chemical can cause thyroid tumors and adverse effects on the liver and reproductive systems.
The chemical, which blocks an enzyme in plants needed for growth, has been described as 10 times as potent as dicamba, another weedkiller used on soybeans and cotton, whose products have caused millions of acres of unintended crop damage since its approval in 2017.
But though the EPA's own guidance states that carcinogenic effects in animals could point to human risk, the agency stated that its final risk assessment found “no human health risks of concern."
The plaintiffs argue that the EPA did not take all the proper steps to reach this conclusion, having failed to quantify the chemical's danger, especially when combined with exposure to other approved chemicals.
“Trifludimoxazin is a likely human carcinogen that belongs to a family of weedkillers that also causes reproductive harm, birth defects, and neurological deficits in animal studies,” said Bill Freese, science director at the Center for Food Safety. “As if the health threats weren’t enough, this incredibly potent herbicide can drift to stunt crops and wild plants hundreds of yards from a sprayed field, while runoff threatens wetland plants. Potent biocides like this have no business on the American landscape.”
The lawsuit also notes that two of the approved trifludimoxazin products combine it with another toxic herbicide called saflufenacil, meaning that farmworkers who apply the chemicals could be exposed to the effects of both at once. The plaintiffs said the EPA did not evaluate the risk that would be posed to farmworkers who are exposed to these chemicals.
“While everyone’s distracted by the Trump administration’s erratic actions on the world stage, it keeps approving dangerous forever pesticides right here on our own soil,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s unconscionable, immoral, and illegal. Our kids and grandkids deserve better than to be saddled with pollution that never goes away.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Killing Roadless Rule Would Put 400 Species on 'Extinction Fast Track,' Study Finds
"The most imperiled wildlife in America's national forests all need large, connected landscapes where nature's systems still function."
Aug 26, 2026
A conservation group that ripped the Trump administration's recent move to repeal a rule protecting 45 million acres of national forest lands warned Wednesday that the proposed rollback would put 400 species on an "extinction fast track."
The Center for Biological Diversity released a study, titled "Deadly Incursions," that lays out how rescinding the landmark Roadless Area Conservation Rule would "open pristine public lands to road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development," damaging "natural areas, clean water, and wildlife protected under the Endangered Species Act."
"From the old-growth rainforests of Alaska's Tongass to the sky island ranges of the Southwest and the headwaters of the Appalachians, the most imperiled wildlife in America's national forests all need large, connected landscapes where nature's systems still function," the report reads. "The roadless rule has protected those landscapes since 2001."
The center found that if the rule ends, "7.4 million acres of designated critical habitat and nearly 1,800 miles of protected rivers and streams would be put at risk. This would pose a catastrophic threat to 88 federally protected animals and plants across the country with designated critical habitat in or affected by roadless areas, including grizzly bears, Canada lynxes, and native fish. Over 300 more species protected under the Endangered Species Act are found in roadless areas, but do not have designated protections for the places they live."
The document explains that road construction and logging don't just impact creatures on land. They also "cause significant soil erosion, sending sediment into waterways—raising water temperatures, smothering spawning beds, and degrading water quality downstream. This threatens imperiled aquatic life such as Chinook salmon, bull trout, candy darters, freshwater mussels, and frogs whose critical habitat may be outside roadless areas."
In addition to devastating already imperiled wildlife, from "Mexican spotted owls and Gila trout in the Southwest," to "rare butterflies and wildflowers nationwide," killing the roadless rule would have various other negative impacts, the analysis details. "Many roadless areas contain mature and old-growth forests that absorb and store vast amounts of carbon," and logging would release it, worsening the global climate emergency.
A Mexican spotted owl perches in a tree. (Phoo by Shaula Hedwall/US Fish and Wildlife Service)
The report also highlights that "national forests are the largest source of municipal drinking water in the United States, serving more than 60 million people in 33 states," and logging and road construction would increase pollution risks. Wildfire risk would also rise, the study stresses, citing research that found fires were four times as likely in areas with roads than in roadless forest.
The publication further points out that "the Forest Service manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads—roughly eight times the length of the nation’s Interstate Highway System—and faces a multibillion-dollar maintenance backlog. Expanding the road network into previously undeveloped areas would increase long-term infrastructure and maintenance costs paid by taxpayers."
Randi Spivak, the center's public lands policy director, said Wednesday that "our national forests are home to some of America's most iconic animals, from grizzlies to hellbenders. These forests provide clean drinking water to countless communities. Bulldozing more roads through them will mean dirtier water, fragmented wildlife habitat, and greater wildfire risk."
"For a generation, the roadless rule has kept our wildest places wild," Spivak said. If President Donald Trump "succeeds in scrapping it, he'll do irreversible damage to our wildlife, water, and the wild places that define the American landscape."
After Trump's agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, announced early last week that the Forest Service had filed a proposal to fully rescind the roadless rule, the administration on Friday took aim at another policy meant to protect public lands: the Travel Management Rule.
"This is yet another egregious attack in the systematic dismantling of public lands management of our national forests," declared Dan Hartinger, senior director for agency policy at the Wilderness Society. "Paired with the proposed repeal of the roadless rule, this destructive agenda sells out future generations' enjoyment of our forests in order to hand them over for corporate profits."
Thomas Delehanty, senior attorney with Earthjustice's Rocky Mountain Office, also blasted the administration for targeting the roadless rule and "attempting to open up our national forests to more off-road vehicle use that will degrade the landscape and disturb wildlife and other land users."
"Some places in our national forests are meant for quiet, undisturbed recreation and protecting sensitive wildlife, including endangered species," said Delehanty. "This rule would open all roads and trails to ORVs by default, meaning areas set aside for hiking, hunting, or horseback riding could soon be fair game to four-wheelers and dirt bikes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump EPA Urged to Withdraw Rule to Let Data Centers Obtain Pollution Permits in Secret
"The result will be some of the dirtiest power sources rushed into neighborhoods without giving communities any opportunity to weigh in," said one critic.
Aug 25, 2026
Critics are warning that President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency is pushing through a rule that would let artificial intelligence data center builders off the hook for making public disclosures ahead of construction.
The rule, which first came to light during an EPA meeting last month, would delegate power to states over public participation in the permitting process for specific sources of air pollution, such as diesel generators that are frequently used by data centers.
According to a July report in Mother Jones, the proposed rule "could have major consequences for how ordinary people are given notice about new or expanded polluting facilities coming into their neighborhoods."
Late last week, a coalition of more than 200 environmental groups filed objections to the rule change, which they warned would make public notice for certain polluting projects entirely optional, depending on the whims of state and local governments.
Dori Jaffe, managing attorney at Sierra Club, said on Monday that the rule change would "help data center developers evade more health standards and do so secretly."
"We demand that the EPA rescind this attempt to further cut the public out of decisions made in their own backyards," said Jaffe. "We deserve to have a say about developments in our community that would impact our air quality and the health of our families."
Sheena Patel, attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, noted that the administration was attempting to limit public input into polluting projects at a time when opposition to AI data center construction has hit a record high among US voters.
If the rule change goes through, Patel added, "the result will be some of the dirtiest power sources rushed into neighborhoods without giving communities any opportunity to weigh in."
Brandon Jones-Cobb, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said it was "beyond cruel" that the EPA seems determined to "silence front-line communities who bear the brunt of unhealthy air" generated by polluting industries.
"The agency has already turned its back on science, cut enforcement against industrial polluters and eliminated life-saving air pollution measures," said Jones-Cobb. "Now it wants to shut the public out of decisions to build or expand facilities that expose communities to dangerous air pollution, including data centers. This EPA is so out of touch with Americans and only focuses on making polluters happy."
In an interview with The Guardian published Tuesday, Joe Goffman, former assistant administrator for the EPA’s office of air and radiation, said the rule change would dismantle what he described as an "ironclad promise" made in the 1963 Clean Air Act to give ordinary citizens voices in where, how, and whether potential centers of air pollution are built.
"The administration is basically saying: 'You all may have thought this was an ironclad promise, but it no longer is,'" Goffman emphasized.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don't Just Pause Trump Border Construction in Big Bend National Park, Say Conservationists, End It
"Even with Customs and Border Protection pumping the brakes, the contractors could resume bulldozing deeper into the national park, causing irreversible damage to the wildest place in Texas," warned one campaigner.
Aug 18, 2026
Since US Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott on Monday announced a temporary pause on construction in Big Bend National Park for an "on-the-ground evaluation," conservationists have called for CBP to permanently halt the Trump administration's widely opposed plans for southwest Texas.
"We've been watching the permanent destruction of a great American national park unfold in real time," said Laiken Jordahl, national public lands advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement.
The center joined Friends of the Ruidosa Church and a local river guide and landowner on Monday in asking a federal judge to stop border barrier and road construction in the region until the court rules on their lawsuit challenging a related waiver of various laws issued by the Trump administration.
"Even with Customs and Border Protection pumping the brakes, the contractors could resume bulldozing deeper into the national park, causing irreversible damage to the wildest place in Texas," Jordahl warned. "We're hopeful the judge will stop this destruction until there's a ruling on the merits of our case."
CPB previously ditched plans for a 30-foot wall in the area, but crews recently started work on a new road, barriers intended to stop cars from crossing over from Mexico, and other infrastructure as part of President Donald Trump's intense anti-immigrant agenda. Conservationists are concerned about negative impacts on not only the national park but also nearby Amistad National Recreation Area and Big Bend Ranch State Park.
The border construction in the region has been met with sweeping opposition, including from both Democratic and Republican elected officials. GOP Texas Gov. Greg Abbott suggested Monday that his weekend conversation with Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin led to the pause. He said the department leader assured him there would be "no construction of any type of barrier at Big Bend National Park," with federal agents instead relying on "other tools" to prevent any border crossings.
The public outcry is working. Keep up the pressure until they fully abandon the plan to wreck Big Bend for no reason other than to make contractors money.Law enforcement, conservationists, Democrats, Republicans, Texans all agree: leave Big Bend alone.
[image or embed]
— Congressman Greg Casar (@repcasar.bsky.social) August 17, 2026 at 6:58 PM
Tiernan Sittenfeld, president and CEO for the National Parks Conservation Association, framed the pause as proof that public pressure works, saying: "The people have spoken, and they do not want the Trump administration to bulldoze America's national parks for border infrastructure. This pause on construction comes following hundreds of thousands of Americans bravely raising their voices to save Big Bend National Park."
"Unfortunately, the federal contractors' bulldozers have already inflicted tremendous damage to one of America's most iconic national parks," she noted. "Their heavy equipment has torn through miles of priceless wild landscape, wreaking havoc on sensitive wildlife and irreplaceable habitat."
"We demand that Customs and Border Protection take accountability for the destruction that has occurred at the park and do better by the American people and by our national parks," she added. "When Customs and Border Protection meets with West Texas communities, national park advocates, and expert national park staff, we urge the agency to commit to preventing any further harm to Big Bend and other protected landscapes."
Big Bend National Park is pretty perfect “as is,” so keep raising your voices.
[image or embed]
— Senator Martin Heinrich (@heinrich.senate.gov) August 17, 2026 at 6:08 PM
Dave Cortez, director of the Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter, pledged Monday that "West Texas will not stand by while these irreplaceable landscapes remain at risk. This pause is a step in the right direction, but the threat has not passed."
"While we call on Texans of all political stripes to continue to press Gov. Abbott to defend Big Bend, we need every American who cherishes our public lands to continue to contact their members of Congress and encourage them to abandon every plan that puts Big Bend in harm's way," Cortez continued.
His colleague who manages the national Sierra Club's lands conservation campaign, Jackie Feinberg, also stressed that "Big Bend should never have been bulldozed for a destructive border project, and the Trump administration must make this pause permanent and repair the damage already done."
"Anything less than a full withdrawal is unacceptable for the millions of Americans across the country who love and cherish our national parks and public lands," she said. "The Sierra Club will keep fighting until this project is permanently rescinded. We call on Congress to act to defend Big Bend and ensure that our shared lands and waters nationwide are protected for generations to come."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Outrage, Trump Border Chief Halts Construction in Big Bend National Park
While welcoming the development, one advocate stressed that "we won't rest until the contracts are canceled, the waivers of law are rescinded, and the bulldozers are sent packing for good."
Aug 17, 2026
US Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott announced Monday that "CBP is pausing all construction activity in Big Bend National Park while I visit and conduct a personal, on-the-ground evaluation" of the Trump administration's controversial plans for the Texas site.
Although CBP previously abandoned plans for a 30-foot wall, crews recently started work on its revised scheme for the national land and a state park in the area, which involves "a new road, lights, miles of barriers designed to stop cars from crossing the border, and technology such as fiber optic cables to be buried under the fences," as The Associated Press reported Monday. It's part of President Donald Trump's much broader anti-immigrant agenda, which includes mass detention and deportation efforts.
The new plans for southern Texas have drawn criticism from local residents, Democratic and Republican politicians, all five sheriffs in the Big Bend border region, and organizations including the Center for Biological Diversity, which has filed a related lawsuit. The group's national public lands advocate, Laiken Jordahl, said last week that "this is the most heinous attack on an American national park in generations."
"The administration is preparing to blast hundreds of miles of destructive roads through the wildest place left in Texas and cut off public access to the Rio Grande, all to enrich private contractors," Jordahl continued. "Big Bend belongs to us all, and sacrificing it is a betrayal of every Texan and every American who believes our national parks should be protected. We won’t stop fighting this reckless assault on Big Bend National Park and America's natural heritage until this destruction ends."
National Parks Conservation Association president and CEO, Tiernan Sittenfeld, similarly declared last week that "bulldozing Big Bend National Park is an unconscionable attack on one of America's greatest treasures."
"The administration is slashing through miles of this wild landscape, threatening access to recreation, and harming sensitive wildlife habitat, she said. "Park advocates and local communities have warned the administration for months that their plan to build border wall infrastructure in Big Bend poses serious risks to this one-of-a-kind national park and surrounding landscape. Now Big Bend National Park and the people who love this place are suffering the consequences."
"Customs and Border Protection must halt construction in this iconic landscape," Sittenfeld argued. "There is still a chance for the administration to work together with Congress and communities to form a new plan for border security in the region that will not forever damage America's national parks."
Heeding such calls on Monday, Scott claimed that "CBP is firmly committed to protecting America, and that includes our national treasures like Big Bend National Park. We know the current and predictable national security threats and they are real. Now over the next couple of days, I will join a small team to evaluate the terrain and listen to local leadership, community members, and stakeholders to ensure that we secure our borders while simultaneously protecting BBNP for generations to come."
Noting that the "massive, nonpartisan outcry has taken Texas and the nation by storm," Jordahl welcomed Scott's announcement on social media.
"For the first time in weeks, the machines are quiet," he said. "This is welcome news, but they will likely commence with destruction again soon. DHS has lied to us every step of the way about this project. We can't afford to let up the pressure. We won't rest until the contracts are canceled, the waivers of law are rescinded, and the bulldozers are sent packing for good."
As part of the center's case, it joined Friends of the Ruidosa Church and a Big Bend-area river guide and landowner on Monday in asking a federal judge for an emergency injunction halting border barrier and road construction across the region.
"We've been watching the permanent destruction of a great American national park unfold in real time," Jordahl said in a statement. "Even with Customs and Border Protection pumping the breaks, the contractors could resume bulldozing deeper into the national park, causing irreversible damage to the wildest place in Texas. We're hopeful the judge will stop this destruction until there's a ruling on the merits of our case."
This article has been updated with the injunction request.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Administration Proposes Gutting Environmental Rules to Speed Space Race
"This would put untold species directly in harm's way," the Center for Biological Diversity warned.
Jul 29, 2026
Under pressure from companies owned by billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, the Trump administration announced this week that it will waive what it called "unnecessary environmental laws and regulations" in order to expedite the approval of commercial rocket launches.
The US Department of Transportation's (USDOT) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing to waive numerous environmental review requirements and related federal laws that currently apply to commercial space launches, citing legal authority Congress granted to the secretary of transportation.
The proposed changes—on which the public has 30 days to comment—would make it much faster and easier for space profiteers to get permission to launch rockets or operate commercial spaceports in the United States by allowing the FAA to waive part or all of over a dozen laws and rules, including National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
“America won the first space race, and we can do it again—but only if we get government red tape out of the way,” US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on Tuesday. "That’s why President [Donald] Trump has charged USDOT with unlocking the final frontier and reestablishing the United States’ dominance in space."
Trump’s FAA announced today that it intends to exempt #space launches and spacecraft reentries from complying with environmental laws like the #EndangeredSpeciesAct. This will put untold species directly in harm’s way.You can be sure we’ll fight this obscene giveaway to special interests 🚀🚀
— Center for Biological Diversity (@biologicaldiversity.org) July 28, 2026 at 4:08 PM
The USDOT said that other federal agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) or the US military, may still be required to conduct environmental reviews under the law for launches on some federal property.
The proposal follows Trump's August 2025 executive order, "Enabling Competition in the Commercial Space Industry," which critics charge was issued to benefit Musk, the world's richest person, and his company SpaceX, which is seeking to dramatically increase launches and landings and has suffered a series of rocket explosions. Trump has boosted other companies—including X and Tesla—led by Musk, who served for a period last year as de facto head of the president's so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
Opponents warn that, if approved, the proposed changes mean that the FAA would generally no longer require environmental studies or consultations before issuing commercial space licenses.
“NASA has conducted space launches for decades in a responsible way, but now Trump wants to gut even the most basic environmental safeguards to enrich some of the world’s wealthiest people,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). “We’ve seen real environmental damage from the exploding rocket toys of the superrich. You can be damn sure we’ll fight this obscene giveaway to special interests.”
In 2024, SpaceX was punished with a paltry $150,000 in fines for violating the Clean Water Act after it discharged tens of thousands of gallons of industrial waste from a launch pad in Boca Chica, Texas.
CBD and other green and Indigenous groups last month sued the US Fish and Wildlife Service in a bid to stop the Trump administration from handing over 715 acres of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in South Texas to SpaceX in exchange for 683 acres elsewhere.
On Wednesday, CNBC revealed that six US lawmakers from both major parties—including five who sit on committees that regulate SpaceX—had or have family investments in the company, raising concerns over apparent conflicts of interest.
In addition to environmental concerns, Trump has also come under fire for militarizing space in contravention of the Outer Space Treaty—which the US has ratified—by launching the Space Force as an official service branch during his first term.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'One-Way Ticket to Extinction': Trump Admin Again Guts Endangered Species Act
“In the midst of an extinction crisis," said one advocate, "the Trump administration is gutting protections to benefit industry interests."
Jul 18, 2026
“Yet again, the Trump administration has sold out our endangered wildlife to the highest bidder,” said one biodiversity advocate after the US Department of Interior, in a Friday news dump, issued two new policy changes that would weaken the Endangered Species Act and make it easier for corporate polluters to prioritize their own bottom lines over habitat protection.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) rescinded a policy that has been known as the "blanket rule" since 1975, which has given threatened species the same protections from illegal killing, trapping, harassment, and other forms of "take" under the ESA, as species that are officially designated as endangered.
The rollback would apply to species that have been newly declared as threatened, including the Florida manatee, the Pygmy rabbit, the Aztec Gilia, and Clover's Cactus—which could now go for years without protections despite their habitat loss and declining populations.
“Today’s decision represents a profound failure by Interior Secretary [Doug] Burgum and his department, and it amounts to an utter abdication of the federal government’s responsibility to protect America’s wildlife," said Sara Amundson, president of the Humane World Action Fund. "The department’s role is to faithfully implement—and certainly not to dismantle—the Endangered Species Act.”
The other policy change will require the FWS to consider the economic impact on various industries of designating areas as "critical" habitats in order to protect threatened and endangered species. The agency has previously had discretion over whether to consider economics when making habitat protection decisions.
Under President Donald Trump's new rule, said the Center for Biological Diversity, the FWS will be forced "to accept at face value claims by corporations and landowners of economic impacts from designating critical habitat, which could greatly limit the amount and quality of habitat protected for imperiled wildlife."
“Trump is bending over backward for corporate polluters by ripping away the blanket that protects so many struggling wildlife species as well as the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the natural places where we seek peace of mind."
"The way this is written, a landowner could falsely claim they planned to build the next Disneyland on their property, so designating critical habitat would supposedly cost them tens of millions of dollars,” said Noah Greenwald, CBD's endangered species co-director. “This rule is clearly intended to prevent the protection of the wild places that endangered animals and plants need to survive. It’s a despicable move that cheapens the value of our most imperiled wildlife so corporations can make more money. Anyone can make outrageous claims about how much their property is worth, but that shouldn’t be taken as gospel.”
Advocacy groups said both policy changes amounted to giveaways to the logging, mining, drilling, and cattle ranching industries. The latter industry has long lobbied against land being designated as a critical habitat for the ‘I‘iwi bird in Hawaii, Clay Samford, an attorney with the environmental legal group Earthjustice, told The Washington Post.
“It’s part of this administration’s push to reduce protections for public lands and wildlife that are enjoyed by all Americans, in favor of narrow business interests,” Samford told the newspaper.
A senior attorney for the group, Elizabeth Forsyth, said in a statement that "the Trump administration is turning the law on its head by letting extractive industries dictate where critical habitat can be destroyed."
"This prioritization of industry interests over science is fundamentally at odds with the clear purpose of the Endangered Species Act," said Forsyth. "We won’t let this dangerous giveaway go unchallenged.”
There is currently a backlog of more than 500 species awaiting consideration for listing as threatened or endangered, and the rule changes, along with the Trump administration's 18% reduction in the FWS workforce, are expected to leave imperiled species waiting even longer for protections.
“In the midst of an extinction crisis, with hundreds of species like the Florida manatee and the wolverine desperately needing stronger protections for their habitats, the Trump administration is gutting protections to benefit industry interests," said Ryan Shannon, a senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife. "Where we see our nation's irreplaceable wildlife, they see dollar signs. But our federal lands and waters, and the species they support, belong to all Americans, not to the logging, drilling, and mining industries that oppose all limits on maximizing their private profits.”
In a statement, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum asserted that the ESA has long been "weaponized to stop almost any new project in America, driving up costs for families, weakening our competitiveness, and undermining our national security,” continued Secretary Burgum.
He added that the endangered species list has "fallen short," with 97% of listed species remaining designated as endangered, and called for "species recovery and delisting."
But Defenders of Wildlife noted that the ESA "has succeeded in preventing extinction for 99% of listed species."
"Public support for protecting our native wildlife remains overwhelmingly high, with 84% of voters supporting the ESA, according to nationwide polling conducted by Defenders of Wildlife," said the group.
The rules announced on Friday came days after the Interior Department proposed a new rule under which management of threatened grizzly bears would be transferred from the federal government to the states, where Republican leaders have pushed to end protections for the species.
The administration also exempted oil and gas companies from having to protect endangered species in the Gulf of Mexico, and earlier this month changed the regulatory interpretation of the word "harm" in the ESA.
“These rules are a one-way ticket to extinction for our most imperiled animals and plants, from monarch butterflies to giraffes to alligator snapping turtles,” said Greenwald. “Trump is bending over backward for corporate polluters by ripping away the blanket that protects so many struggling wildlife species as well as the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the natural places where we seek peace of mind. This is the last thing we need in the middle of an extinction crisis, and we’ll fight it with everything we’ve got.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy