

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.

Liz Trotter, etrotter@earthjustice.org, 305-332-5395
Kristen Monsell, kmonsell@biologicaldiversity.org, 510-844-7137
Gabby Brown, gabby.brown@sierraclub.org, 914-261-4626
Jake Bleich, jbleich@defenders.org, 202-772-3208
Ten environmental groups sued the Trump administration today to challenge rollbacks of the 2016 Well Control and Blowout Preventer Rule, a safety regulation meant to prevent another blowout like what happened during the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon disaster.
The coalition of both local and national groups that filed the lawsuit is composed of Earthjustice, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Healthy Gulf, The Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, North Carolina Coastal Federation, and South Carolina Coastal Conservation League.
The case filed in the Northern District of California challenges key rollbacks to the safety rule including:
This lawsuit is meant to restore the protections put in place after the 2010 BP blowout. The blowout killed 11 men, and resulted in an oil spill that spewed over 130 million gallons of toxic crude into the Gulf, polluting 1,300 miles of shoreline, killing billions of individual species of birds, fish, whales, oysters, and other wildlife decimating the seafood and tourism industries of the Gulf states.
The groups allege that the Department of the Interior disregarded the extensive evidence and expert findings that went into the original rule. They also claim the department failed to consider how the rollbacks could harm offshore safety and the environment, while also violating transparency requirements.
The following are statements from the groups:
"These rollbacks are a step back to the pre-Deepwater Horizon days when the offshore oil industry largely policed itself to disastrous effect. This attempt to roll the dice with offshore safety not only puts workers and our coasts at risk, but violates the law," said Chris Eaton, Earthjustice attorney.
"On the Gulf Coast, these safety standards have very real implications for workers, the environment and our coastal economy," said Cynthia Sarthou, executive director of Healthy Gulf. "This administration claims the cost is a 'burden' to one of the most profitable industries in the world. That is not a sound justification to rollback these necessary safeguards enacted to prevent another catastrophic blowout like the BP disaster."
Bob Deans, Director of Strategic Engagement at the Natural Resources Defense Council said, "The well control rule was one of the most important measures we took, as a nation, to reduce the risk of another BP-style disaster at sea. The 2016 rule enhanced worker safety, the integrity of equipment inspections and the monitoring of critical operations and tests. Weakening those protections to boost industry profits puts our workers, waters and wildlife at needless risk. We're fighting to restore these commonsense safeguards and standing up for all they protect."
"We can't let the Trump administration make dirty offshore drilling even more dangerous," said Kristen Monsell, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "By ignoring the lessons of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Trump is making the next catastrophic oil spill far more likely. Rolling back safety standards while trying to aggressively expand offshore drilling just boggles the mind. So we're asking the court to step in to protect workers, wildlife, coastal communities and our climate."
"The Trump Administration has taken every opportunity to chip away at standards put in place to protect our environment and coastal communities," said Hallie Templeton, Senior Oceans Campaigner for Friends of the Earth. "Big Oil's pursuit of profits have driven Trump's safety rollback and it is a prime example of why we must remain vigilant to ensure that federal agencies are complying with the law every step of the way."
"In seeking to eliminate these common-sense standards, the Trump administration is putting workers in harm's way and threatening coastal communities with another devastating oil spill," said Sierra Club Senior Attorney Devorah Ancel. "We will continue to fight back against this unlawful attempt to give the fossil fuel industry free rein to spoil our coasts and public waters."
"The Trump administration's dismantling of the safety regulations put in place to prevent another Deepwater Horizon catastrophe is improper, imprudent and--most importantly--illegal. This suit is about standing up to the fossil fuel industry on behalf of our invaluable ocean and marine wildlife heritage," said Jane Davenport, Defenders of Wildlife attorney.
"Removing airbags and seatbelts from cars doesn't make them safer. Likewise, erasing the safety rules put in place after Deepwater Horizon makes risky offshore drilling more dangerous," said Catherine Wannamaker of the Southern Environmental Law Center. "This Trump administration rollback makes no sense."
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."