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
todd lyons
Lawsuit Seeks to Protect Monarchs Under Endangered Species Act
Trump Administration Fails to Finalize Overdue Protections for Iconic Butterfly
Feb 12, 2026
Two conservation groups, the Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Food Safety, today sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to force officials to set a binding date to finalize federal protections for monarch butterflies under the Endangered Species Act.
The monarch was proposed for protection in December 2024, making the final listing due in December 2025. The groups argue the delay increases extinction risk for the nationally beloved pollinator.
“Comprehensive protections are urgently needed to ensure a future for these migratory wonders,” said Tierra Curry, endangered species co-director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Monarchs unite us and it’s disgraceful that their future is being sacrificed to political nonsense.”
Instead of issuing the final listing at the end of 2025, Trump officials delayed the decision as a “long-term action,” with no definitive date for issuance provided. The federal assessment of the monarch’s status found that in the next 60 years western migratory monarchs have up to a 99% chance of going extinct and eastern monarchs have up to a 74% chance.
“The Service must finalize monarchs’ protections from their threats, including and especially pesticides, which have been a major driver of their rapid decline,” said George Kimbrell, legal director at the Center for Food Safety and counsel in the case. “The Service’s duty is to protect monarchs not corporations.”
Migratory monarchs have declined by more than 80% since the 1990s. Last year’s eastern population, who overwinter in the mountains of Mexico, was just one-third of the size needed to be out of the danger zone of collapse. Updated population data will publish this spring, but the population is expected to be about the same level.
The western population, who overwinter in forests on the California coast, is down more than 95% since the 1980s and numbered only 12,260 monarchs this year. That’s the third-lowest tally ever counted.
In 2014 the Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, and renowned monarch scientist Lincoln Brower filed a scientific and legal petition with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service seeking protection for the butterflies and their habitat under the Endangered Species Act. The butterflies were placed on a candidate waiting list for protection in 2020. The centers filed a lawsuit to elevate them from bureaucratic limbo resulting in the proposed listing in 2024.
Today’s lawsuit was filed in San Francisco in the U.S. District Court for the North District of California.
Background
In one of the longest migrations of any insect, at the end of summer eastern monarchs fly from the northern United States and southern Canada to overwinter together in high-elevation fir forests in Mexico. The population size is determined by measuring the area of trees turned vivid orange by the clusters of butterflies. Scientists estimate that 15 acres of occupied forest is the minimum threshold for the migrating pollinators to be above extinction risk in North America.
Monarchs face tremendous threats. Their initial decline was driven by widespread loss of milkweed, the caterpillar’s sole food source, due to increased use of the herbicide glyphosate on fields of corn and soybeans genetically engineered to resist it. Volatile herbicides sprayed on newer herbicide-resistant crops drift and reduce floral resources required by adult butterflies. All stages of monarchs are harmed by neonic insecticides used in crop seed coatings and on ornamental plants.
Climate change is damaging the forests where monarchs winter and extreme weather events are interfering with reproduction and migration. Grasslands and other green spaces that provide wildflowers for nectaring adults continue to be lost to development.
Millions of monarchs are killed by vehicles annually as they migrate across the continent. In their winter habitat in Mexico, forests and streams are being decimated to grow avocados for unsustainable U.S. demand. In California, more than 60 known overwintering forest sites have been cut down.
Listing has been indefinitely delayed for hundreds of imperiled species in addition to the monarch as their protections have been deemed “long-term actions.” The Fish and Wildlife Service lost 18% of its staff last year, including more than 500 scientists, and the Endangered Species Act listing budget was slashed to 2004 levels.
In 2025 not a single plant or animal was protected under the Endangered Species Act for the first time since 1981.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘What a Surprise’: Sanders Undeterred by Bezos-Owned Washington Post's Dismissal of AI Data Center Pause
“Jeff Bezos is spending $200 billion on AI and robotics. Jeff Bezos is replacing hundreds of thousands of his workers at Amazon with robots. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.”
Feb 12, 2026
The Washington Post editorial board went to the trouble of marking what it called "Bernie Sanders' worst idea yet" on Wednesday, but the progressive US senator shrugged at the label and didn't appear likely to end his push for a moratorium on the construction of new artificial intelligence data centers.
The conservative-leaning editors wrote glowingly of the "mind-blowing amounts of information" that AI data centers can process and dismissively said that businesses that have invested billions of dollars in AI have erroneously been cast as the "villain in the socialist imagination."
They decried "AI doomerism" by politicians and accused lawmakers like Sanders (I-Vt.) of "fearmongering" about the data centers' water consumption and environmental harms—but neglected to mention that the rapid expansion of the massive centers has sparked grassroots outrage, with communities in states including Michigan and Wisconsin demanding that tech giants stay out of their towns, fearing skyrocketing electricity bills among other impacts.
Sanders emphasized that the Post and its owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, have a vested interest in dismissing efforts to stop the AI build-out that President Donald Trump has demanded with his executive order aimed at stopping states from regulating the industry.
Bezos, one of the richest people on the planet, created an AI startup last year with $6.2 billion in funding, some of it from his personal fortune, and Amazon—where Bezos is still the primary shareholder—has announced plans to invest $200 billion in AI and robotics.
"What a surprise," said Sanders sardonically. "The Washington Post doesn't want a moratorium on AI data centers."
Ben Inskeep, a program director for Citizens Action Coalition in Indiana, suggested the editorial board couldn't express its opposition to Sanders' proposal for a moratorium without including "an admission that it is a paid attack dog for Jeff Bezos," pointing to its required disclosure that Bezos' company is in fact investing billions of dollars in AI.
On social media, Sanders followed his response to the Post's attack with a video in which he doubled down on his objections to AI, despite the editorial board's accusation that he and others "grandstand" on the issue and its insistence that he should "be ecstatic about how much AI can help workers."
Sanders said in the video that "AI and robotics are a huge threat to the working class of this country."
"We have got to be prepared to say as loud and clear as we can that this technology is not just going to benefit the billionaires who own it," he said, "but it's going to work for the working families of our country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Blasts Hegseth Over Effort to 'Shrink the First Amendment Liberties' of Sen. Mark Kelly
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms."
Feb 12, 2026
A federal judge delivered a scathing ruling against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's effort to punish a Democratic US senator for warning members of the military against following unlawful orders.
US District Judge Richard Leon on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction that at least temporarily blocked Hegseth from punishing Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy captain who was one of several Democratic lawmakers to take part in a video that advised military service members that they had a duty to disobey President Donald Trump if he gave them unlawful orders.
In his ruling, Leon eviscerated Hegseth's efforts to reduce Kelly's retirement rank and pay simply for exercising his First Amendment rights.
While Leon acknowledged that active US service members do have certain restrictions on their freedom of speech, he said that these restrictions have never been applied to retired members of the US armed services.
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees," wrote Leon. "To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their government, and our constitution demands they receive it!"
The judge said he would be granting Kelly's request for an injunction because claims that his First Amendment rights were being violated were "likely to succeed on the merits," further noting that the senator has shown "irreparable harm" being done by Hegseth's efforts to censure him.
Leon concluded his ruling by imploring Hegseth to stop "trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members," and instead "reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our nation over the past 250 years."
Shortly after Leon's ruling, Kelly posted a video on social media in which he highlighted the threats posed by the Trump administration's efforts to silence dissent.
"Today, a federal court made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said," Kelly remarked. "But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That's why I couldn't let this stand."
Kelly went on to accuse the Trump administration of "cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of everyone they can."
Today a federal court made clear Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.
This is a critical moment to show this administration they can't keep undermining Americans' rights.
I also know this might not be over yet, because Trump… pic.twitter.com/9dRe9pmeCd
— Senator Mark Kelly (@SenMarkKelly) February 12, 2026
Leon's ruling came less than two days after it was reported that Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host who is now serving as US attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to get Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers criminally indicted on undisclosed charges before getting rejected by a DC grand jury.
According to a Wednesday report from NBC News, none of the grand jurors who heard evidence against the Democrats believed prosecutors had done enough to establish probable cause that the Democrats had committed a crime, leading to a rare unanimous rejection of an attempted federal prosecution.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Under Oath, Top DHS Officials Admit Filming Agents Is Not a Crime
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, has said that videotaping officers on the job is a form of "doxing" and "violence."
Feb 12, 2026
The US Department of Homeland Security has claimed for months that filming immigration agents on the job constitutes a criminal offense. But under oath during a Senate Homeland Security Committee oversight hearing on Thursday, the leaders of immigration agencies under the department’s umbrella admitted this is not true.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the chair of the committee, interrogated Todd Lyons, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Rodney Scott, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP); and Joseph Edlow, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) about the recent surge of agents in Minnesota, which has resulted in the killing of two US citizens since January.
He zeroed in on the case of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse who was shot by a pair of immigration agents on January 24, showing footage of the incident leading up to Pretti's killing, which DHS claimed was justified prior to any investigation taking place.
"So what we see is the beginning of the encounter with Alexander Pretti. He's filming in the middle of the street," Paul explained after rolling the tape.
The senator then asked Scott and Lyons, "Is filming of ICE or Border Patrol either an assault or a crime in any way?"
They both responded flatly, "No."
Courts have generally affirmed that filming law enforcement agents is protected by the First Amendment. But this admission by Lyons and Scott is a major deviation from what their parent agency has claimed.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, stated during a July press briefing that “violence” against DHS agents includes “doxing them” and “videotaping them where they’re at when they’re out on operations.”
Even in the wake of last month's shootings, DHS has held to this line, with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin claiming that “videoing our officers in an effort to dox them and reveal their identities is a federal crime and a felony.”
Agents have been directed to treat those who film ICE as criminals—a DHS bulletin from June described filming at protests as "unlawful civil unrest" tactics and "threats."
Several videos out of Minnesota, Maine, and other places flooded by ICE have documented federal agents telling bystanders to stop recording and issuing threats against them or detaining them.
In one case, a bystander was told that because she was filming, she was going to be put in a "nice little database" and was now "considered a domestic terrorist."
Last month, a federal judge sided with a group of journalists in California who cited the June bulletin to argue that Noem had "established, sanctioned, and ratified an agency policy of treating video recording of DHS agents in public as a threat that may be responded to with force and addressed as a crime," in violation of the First Amendment.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular