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.

Erin Allweiss, NRDC, 202-513-6254
For
decades, the Clean Water Act has broadly protected America's lakes,
rivers, streams, and drinking water sources from unregulated pollution
and destruction, rescuing them from the dire straits they were in
during the late 1960s and early 1970s. But because of a concerted
effort by polluters and developers, and muddied rulings from the U.S.
Supreme Court, up to 60 percent (at least 15,000 important waters) have
lost these vital protections and countless other waters (including more
than 50 percent of our streams and 20 million acres of wetlands) are at
risk of losing protections.
Today, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Environment America,
National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, and Southern Environmental
Law Center are releasing a new report entitled "Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court Has Broken the Clean Water Act and Why Congress Must Fix It,"
which details the threats to America's waters and highlights the urgent
need for Congress to act immediately and restore full Clean Water Act
protections to our waters.
Supreme Court decisions in
2001 and 2006, and subsequent agency policies by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers put in place in 2003
and 2007, shattered the fundamental framework of the Clean Water Act.
Today, many important waters - large and small - are being stripped of
critical protections against pollution and destruction. These waters
not only serve as valuable wildlife habitat, store flood water, return
water to aquifers, and filter pollutants, but they also provide some or
all of the supply for drinking water systems serving roughly 111
million Americans. The floodgates are now open for polluters to use the
chaotic legal state to thwart enforcement and clean up efforts, and
actively pollute the waters where we fish, swim, boat, and drink.
Courting Disaster details
more than 30 cases which demonstrate that without immediate action in
Congress, a generation of progress in cleaning up our nation's waters
may be lost. We cannot afford to return to the days of dirty water.
These telling examples include numerous instances where:
"Across
the nation, polluters are being allowed to dump into our waterways,
including countless drinking water sources," said Jon Devine, Senior
Attorney for NRDC. "Congress can and must fix the Clean Water Act so it
protects the health of our rivers, lakes, streams, and the millions of
Americans who rely on them."
"These examples from across
America make clear the urgent need for Congress to pass the Clean Water
Restoration Act -- every day that passes puts at risk America's
streams, wetlands, and our sources of clean water," said Jim Murphy,
wetlands & water resources counsel, National Wildlife Federation.
"Robust wetlands, rivers, and streams are essential to help people and
wildlife survive the impacts of global warming that include more
intense storms, droughts and habitat loss."
"Since 2003,
drinking water sources for 111 million Americans have been put at risk
because of policies that give free reign to polluters," said Paul
Schwartz, national policy coordinator, Clean Water Action. "This report
shows that action by Congress is overdue."
"The Clean
Water Act was created to broadly protect our nation's waters, including
the many streams, ponds, and wetlands that provide recreation, fishing,
wildlife habitat, and our drinking water," said Dalal Aboulhosn, clean
water representative, Sierra Club. "Congress needs to step up now and
reaffirm the Clean Water Act as it was originally intended before more
of our waters are lost."
"The Clean Water Act is
broken," said Joan Mulhern, senior legislative counsel, Earthjustice.
"Every week that goes that Congress does not pass legislation to fix
it, dozens of streams and wetlands - like those in this report - are
lost to pollution and destruction. President Obama said during the
campaign that he supports this legislation. There is no reason to wait
any longer to address this dire problem."
"The rubber
meets the road in the South where most of America's wetlands and its
greatest growth collide," said Bill Sapp, senior attorney, Southern
Environmental Law Center. "The Clean Water Restoration Act is crucial
to protecting the South's valuable wetlands since many states have
little or no protections in place."
The cases in Courting Disaster
provide telling examples of how critical it is for Congress to reverse
the damage done from the Supreme Court's decisions by restoring
longstanding Clean Water Act protections. The Clean Water Restoration
Act would accomplish this. This Act was introduced in the Senate two
weeks ago. A similar bill should soon be introduced in the House.
The
Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization
of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to
protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has
1.2 million members and online activists, served from offices in New
York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Beijing.
Related NRDC Webpages:
Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court Has Broken the Clean Water Act and Why Congress Must Fix It
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700The president's decision means the US "will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil," said one observer.
President Donald Trump said Sunday that his administration would let a Russia-owned tanker carrying an estimated 730,000 barrels of oil to reach Cuba, loosening the illegal fuel blockade that has intensified the island's already-grave humanitarian crisis.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said that "if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem," backing off his previous threat to tariff any nation that supplied the besieged island with fuel. Cuba has not received any oil imports since January 9, sparking nationwide blackouts and food shortages and leaving hospitals without critical supplies—with deadly consequences for patients.
Trump insisted that the oil on the Russian tanker—which experts say is enough to buy Cuba at least several weeks of energy—is "not going to have an impact," declaring, "Cuba is finished."
"They have a bad regime, and they have very bad and corrupt leadership," added Trump, who presides over what analysts have deemed the most corrupt administration in US history. "Whether or not they get a boat of oil is not going to matter."
Reporter: There's a report that the US is going to let a Russian oil tanker go to Cuba?
Trump: If a country wants to send some oil into Cuba, I have no problem with that.
Reporter: Do you worry that that helps Putin?
Trump: It doesn’t help him. He loses one boatload of oil.… pic.twitter.com/8Vh6gHwaxs
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 30, 2026
Trump's comments came after The New York Times reported that, "barring orders instructing it otherwise," the US Coast Guard would not intercept the Russian tanker as it approached Cuba.
The Russian vessel, known as the Anatoly Kolodkin, is expected to reach the island by Monday night, providing some reprieve to a nation whose economy has been strangled by unlawful US economic warfare for decades. In recent days, an international convoy of activists has delivered tons of food, medicine, and other aid to the island, but the shipments are a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.
Michael Gallant, a member of the Progressive International Secretariat, welcomed news that the US is allowing the Russian tanker to reach Cuba as "very good news"—but said Trump's decision is hardly deserving of praise.
Very good news. “The US will allow,” of course, means “will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil” https://t.co/YF2RRIXC2S
— Michael Galant (@michael_galant) March 29, 2026
Trump imposed the fuel blockade in January, absurdly characterizing Cuba as an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to US national security.
Earlier this month, Trump threatened to "take" Cuba by force, calling it a "very weakened nation." Trump's remarks prompted Cuba's president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, to vow "impregnable resistance" to any US attempt to seize the island. The Trump administration is reportedly seeking Díaz-Canel's removal as a necessary condition in talks with the Cuban government.
Trump's threats led Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) to introduce legislation last week that would prohibit the administration from using federal funds for any attack on Cuba without congressional authorization.
"Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba," Jayapal said in a statement. "These military attacks put our troops in danger, endanger innocent civilians, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and are not what the American people want."
"Trump promised to end forever wars—he lied," Jayapal added. "Congress alone has the power to declare war, something Trump clearly does not respect. He has no plan to improve conditions for the Cuban people or promote democracy, and we must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
"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."