

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.

Lori Ann Burd, (971) 717-6405, laburd@biologicaldiversity.org
The Center for Biological Diversity filed four lawsuits today challenging the Trump administration's failure to release a trove of documents detailing how the administration is regulating dangerous pesticides, especially as they relate to endangered species.
The Center for Biological Diversity filed four lawsuits today challenging the Trump administration's failure to release a trove of documents detailing how the administration is regulating dangerous pesticides, especially as they relate to endangered species.
Today's lawsuits, involving 20 separate Freedom of Information Act requests, were filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C. The suits seek documents the Center requested from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and Council on Environmental Quality.
"Federal agencies that are supposed to be protecting human health, wildlife and our environment from dangerous pesticides have fallen into a terrible pattern of withholding critical information from the American people," said Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center's environmental health program. "It's ridiculous we have to sue to obtain public documents that are key to helping us understand how these dangerous poisons are, and are not, being regulated."
The first lawsuit seeks documents on the actual use of pesticides to evaluate the harm those pesticides cause to endangered species.
As reported by the New York Times, high-level Trump administration political appointees improperly halted the release of a scientific study detailing the harm that chlorpyrifos, malathion and diazinon cause to nearly 1,400 endangered plants and animals. In the scramble to justify this interference, they claimed to need additional actual use data, borrowing from the tobacco's industry's strategy of perpetually claiming a need for more data.
The second lawsuit seeks records of meetings between agency staff, including high-level Trump appointees and Croplife America, a pesticide industry trade group that has repeatedly lobbied to eliminate protections for endangered species from pesticides.
The third lawsuit seeks documents on the activities of an interagency working group of high-level Trump appointees created by disgraced former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt to weaken protections for endangered species.
The final lawsuit seeks records on whether the EPA has taken any steps to put in place conservation measures recommended by the National Marine Fisheries Service to prevent chlorpyrifos from jeopardizing the continued existence of 37 endangered species, including salmon, sturgeon and highly imperiled Puget Sound orcas.
The agencies have failed to disclose the documents responsive to these requests.
Documents previously obtained by the Center revealed that Fish and Wildlife Service scientists found that chlorpyrifos, the controversial pesticide linked to brain damage in children, jeopardizes the continued existence of 1,399 endangered plants and animals.
But at the request of pesticide companies, the Trump administration has worked to undermine the findings of government scientists and delay all further efforts to assess and reduce the impacts of chlorpyrifos and two other dangerous pesticides on endangered species.
"While the Trump appointees running these agencies scurry to do the bidding of the pesticide industry, endangered species like the San Joaquin kit fox are heading toward extinction," said Burd. "You can bet that when we finally get these documents, they'll reveal exactly why Team Trump worked so feverishly to hide them from public view."
Background
The Fish and Wildlife Service was required to complete an analysis called a "biological opinion" on the impacts of three pesticides -- chlorpyrifos, malathion and diazinon -- as part of a legal settlement with the Center. In that settlement the agency agreed to assess by Dec. 31, 2017 the harms the three widely used pesticides pose to protected plants and animals, as required by the Endangered Species Act.
The assessments were on track to be completed and released to the public in 2017.
But shortly after contributing $1 million to President Trump's inauguration, Dow Chemical, the maker of chlorpyrifos, directly requested that the assessments be scuttled.
In May 2017 the Service announced that the draft biological opinion assessing the three pesticides' harms was nearly complete and would be ready for public comment within months.
As Fish and Wildlife Service career staffers were preparing to make the biological opinion available for public comment, on Oct. 25, 2017, they briefed Trump's political appointees on the result of the agency's nearly four years of rigorous scientific review.
The officials briefed included then acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and Greg Sheehan, then acting director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
After that meeting the consultation process halted, just as Dow had requested. The draft biological opinion was not released for public comment as promised. The agency missed the deadline it had agreed to in its settlement with the Center, and completion of the biological opinion has been indefinitely postponed.
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) 623-5252"The billionaires who sat behind Trump at his inauguration: Yeah, the economy is the best ever for them," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "But for the average working person, not quite the case."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders responded incredulously on Tuesday to President Donald Trump's claim that the nation's economy under his stewardship is "the greatest... actually ever in history," despite surging personal and business bankruptcies, plunging consumer sentiment, rising costs, and anemic job and wage growth.
In an appearance on MS NOW, Sanders (I-Vt.) said that "you wonder whether Trump is completely crazy and delusional or just a pathological liar, but the idea that anybody would believe that this is a great economy when 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, when the cost of healthcare is going up, people can't afford housing, people can't afford their basic groceries, the childcare system is dysfunctional, people can't afford to go to college."
"If this is the greatest economy in the history of the world," the senator added, "God help us."
Watch:
Sanders' remarks came in response to Trump's interview Tuesday with Fox Business host Larry Kudlow, during which the president falsely claimed he has ushered in "the greatest period of anything that we've ever seen," including "the greatest economy actually ever in history."
While Trump and members of his class have seen their wealth surge to record levels during his second White House term, working-class Americans are struggling to make ends meet as the president's tariffs and assault on the social safety net drive up costs. One recent analysis estimated that the average US family paid $1,625 in higher costs last year as prices for groceries, housing, and other necessities continued to rise.
Trump's claim of an economic "golden age" in the US was also undermined by a new House Budget Committee report report showing that personal bankruptcy filings increased 11% last year, reaching levels not seen since 2019—during the president's first term in the White House. Those figures came on top of earlier data showing that business bankruptcies are at a 15-year high.
“Donald Trump’s reckless tariff taxes are driving up prices, hurting the economy, and leaving families to pay the price," Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement. "The only people benefiting in Donald Trump’s economy are his billionaire donors—everyone else is falling further behind.”
Sanders echoed that message during his MS NOW appearance late Tuesday, saying, "The billionaires who sat behind Trump at his inauguration: Yeah, the economy is the best ever for them."
"But for the average working person," Sanders said, "not quite the case."
"No reason given. No one, not even military users, were apparently given advanced warning," said one veteran journalist. "Aside from 9/11, I can't remember anything like that."
The is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
Speculation and alarm was triggered overnight after the Federal Aviation Administration late Tuesday, with nothing more than "special security reasons” given as a reason, ordered the suspension of all incoming and outgoing flights from the airport in El Paso, Texas.
"What on Earth is going on?" asked Franklin Leonard, a contributing editor with Vanity Fair, in a reaction to the news—given the limited information provided by the federal government—that was similarly expressed by many online.
In a post on Instagram, the El Paso International Airport said, "All flights to and from El Paso are grounded, including commercial, cargo and general aviation. The FAA has issued a flight restriction halting all flights to and from El Paso effective from February 10 at 11:30 PM (MST) to February 20 at 11:30PM (MST)." No further details were given and passengers were told to contact their carrier for status on specific flights.
Inevitable online speculation—including concerns about US military operations in Mexico, a connection to President Donald Trump's sweeping deportation operations, and other less plausible notions—was rife in the early hours of Wednesday morning as word spread of the closure. Others simply noted the unusual nature of the FAA order.
"So this is really strange," John Stempkin, a veteran news producer with NPR, said of the unexplained closure. "No reason given. No one, not even military users, were apparently given advanced warning. Aside from 9/11, I can't remember anything like that."
A statement from the airport said the grounding order had been given “on short notice” and that it was waiting for additional guidance from the FAA. In its notice, the FAA said the federal government “may use deadly force” against aircraft violating the airspace and determined to pose “an imminent security threat.”
The grounding of flights, noted the Associated Press, "is likely to create significant disruptions given the duration and the size of the metropolitan area. El Paso, a border city with a population of nearly 700,000 and larger when you include the surrounding metro area, is hub of cross-border commerce alongside neighboring Ciudad Juarez in Mexico."
Reached by phone early Wednesday by the New York Times for his reaction, Representative Joaquin Castro, a Democrat who represents San Antonio, said he had no idea what was going on. “Sorry, I don’t have some clear answer,” Castro told the Times. Asked if he was surprised, the lawmaker simply said, “Yes.”
"They tried to have me charged with a crime—all because of something I said that they didn’t like," said Sen. Mark Kelly. "That’s not the way things work in America."
A federal grand jury on Tuesday declined to go along with an effort by the Trump Justice Department to indict Democratic lawmakers involved in a November video reminding members of the US military of their duty to refuse illegal orders, a message that came as President Donald Trump deployed troops to major American cities.
The failed attempt to indict the six Democratic lawmakers was led by Trump loyalist Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host who is now serving as US attorney for the District of Columbia. The New York Times reported that federal prosecutors "sought to persuade the grand jurors that the lawmakers had violated a statute that forbids interfering with the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the US armed forces."
Trump, who has repeatedly weaponized the Justice Department against his political opponents, erupted in response to the 90-second video, accusing the Democratic lawmakers behind it of "seditious behavior, punishable by death."
The lawmakers who appeared in the video were Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan as well as Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, and Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire. The Democrats learned they were under investigation last month when they received inquiries from Pirro's office.
Lawmakers and legal observers said it was deeply alarming that the DOJ even tried to secure the indictment.
"What an ugly assault on the First Amendment and on Congress," said legal scholar Ryan Goodman. "Thankfully, thwarted."
Kelly, a retired Navy captain who is facing Pentagon attempts to censure him and cut his military benefits, said the effort to indict him and his fellow Democratic lawmakers was "an outrageous abuse of power by Donald Trump and his lackies."
"It wasn’t enough for Pete Hegseth to censure me and threaten to demote me, now it appears they tried to have me charged with a crime—all because of something I said that they didn’t like," Kelly wrote on social media. "That’s not the way things work in America."
We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community.
The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.
Don’t give up the ship. pic.twitter.com/N8lW0EpQ7r
— Sen. Elissa Slotkin (@SenatorSlotkin) November 18, 2025
Slotkin, a former CIA officer who organized the November video, said Pirro pursued the indictment "at the direction of President Trump, who said repeatedly that I should be investigated, arrested, and hanged for sedition."
"Today, it was a grand jury of anonymous American citizens who upheld the rule of law and determined this case should not proceed. Hopefully, this ends this politicized investigation for good," the senator said. "But today wasn’t just an embarrassing day for the administration. It was another sad day for our country."
"Because whether or not Pirro succeeded is not the point. It’s that President Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies," Slotkin added. "No matter what President Trump and Pirro continue to do with this case, tonight we can score one for the Constitution, our freedom of speech, and the rule of law."