Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
May 5, 2026
Mike Luckovich-Under construction: Captain trump Ballroom
— Mike Luckovich (@mluckovich.bsky.social) 2026-05-05T19:01:34.348Z
May 5, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-gas-prices-iran-boast-two-months
MaddowBlog-2 months later, Trump's boast about 'stabilizing' oil prices looks ridiculous
The president still hasn’t explained what in the world he was talking about, or why those undefined moves failed so badly.
It was two months ago today when Trump boasted, “Yesterday, my administration announced decisive action to help keep down the oil prices.†He quickly added that prices “have pretty much stabilized.â€
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-05-05T17:06:39.673Z
Today seemed like a good day to revisit that quote.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-gas-prices-iran-boast-two-months
“Yesterday, my administration announced decisive action to help keep down the oil prices,” the Republican declared. Moments later, he went on to say oil prices “have pretty much stabilized.”
It was never altogether clear what “decisive” actions the president was referring to, but two months later, it’s painfully clear that those mysterious moves failed to “pretty much stabilize” prices. MS NOW reported:
A day later, that national average inched higher, reaching $4.48 per gallon, while the average for diesel climbed to $5.66.
An analysis published by Bloomberg News described the recent trend as the sharpest spike in pump prices in at least three decades, and while the president has continued to insist that prices will plummet after the war, the fact remains that (a) it’s far from clear when the conflict will be over; and (b) dozens of energy sites throughout the Middle East have been struck as part of the war; wells have to be reopened; and some infrastructure will have to be rebuilt, all of which will take time.....
As for Trump, in March, he tried to pitch the public on the idea that higher prices were a good thing — a line that proves so foolish that even he didn’t repeat it — which gave way to the president saying in April that gas prices were “not very high.”
His latest line, offered on Tuesday morning, argued that higher prices at the pump are “a very small price to pay,” which is easy for him to say given he doesn’t have to worry about paying those prices.
As for the “decisive” actions he claims to have taken two months ago, that he said “pretty much stabilized” prices, Trump still hasn’t explained what in the world he was talking about, or why those undefined moves failed so badly.
It was never altogether clear what “decisive” actions the president was referring to, but two months later, it’s painfully clear that those mysterious moves failed to “pretty much stabilize” prices. MS NOW reported:
The average price for a gallon of gas in the U.S. reached $4.46 [on Monday] as the standstill in the Strait of Hormuz continues to strain global energy markets. The average price for one gallon of diesel fuel topped $5.64, according to national averages tracked by AAA.
A day later, that national average inched higher, reaching $4.48 per gallon, while the average for diesel climbed to $5.66.
An analysis published by Bloomberg News described the recent trend as the sharpest spike in pump prices in at least three decades, and while the president has continued to insist that prices will plummet after the war, the fact remains that (a) it’s far from clear when the conflict will be over; and (b) dozens of energy sites throughout the Middle East have been struck as part of the war; wells have to be reopened; and some infrastructure will have to be rebuilt, all of which will take time.....
As for Trump, in March, he tried to pitch the public on the idea that higher prices were a good thing — a line that proves so foolish that even he didn’t repeat it — which gave way to the president saying in April that gas prices were “not very high.”
His latest line, offered on Tuesday morning, argued that higher prices at the pump are “a very small price to pay,” which is easy for him to say given he doesn’t have to worry about paying those prices.
As for the “decisive” actions he claims to have taken two months ago, that he said “pretty much stabilized” prices, Trump still hasn’t explained what in the world he was talking about, or why those undefined moves failed so badly.
May 5, 2026
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-doj-cole-allen-attempted-assassination-letter
Piro is going to have to admit that the pedophile mentioned by the Defendant was trump. This will be fun to watch
Deadline Legal Blog-Trump DOJ could have awkward time explaining this part of its Cole Allen prosecution
The Justice Department says the suspect in the correspondents’ dinner attack was talking about Trump when he referred to a “pedophile, rapist, and traitor.”
Trump DOJ could have awkward time explaining this part of its Cole Allen prosecution www.ms.now/deadline-whi... Really wish his reckoning could happen while he was alive but it probably won’t. Any day now he’ll just drop dead of a grabber or some other old age related death and we can start moving
— Fordsrummy (@fordsrummy.bsky.social) 2026-05-03T22:24:55.758Z
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-doj-cole-allen-attempted-assassination-letter
In their motion seeking Cole Tomas Allen’s pretrial release, his lawyers argued that Allen’s intent to assassinate President Donald Trump at the White House correspondents’ dinner last weekend is “far from clear.” Ahead of Thursday’s detention hearing, they wrote that the letter in which Allen allegedly explained his actions “makes no mention of the president by name.”.....
In part of his letter explaining “why I did any of this,” Allen allegedly wrote that “I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.” When explaining his “expected rules of engagement” in the letter, he allegedly wrote that he “would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.” As for the reference to “targets” plural, which would include more than just Trump, Allen’s alleged “expected rules of engagement” also included “Administration officials.”
When asked by a reporter for his reaction to the letter, Trump seemed upset at the reporter for asking and said, in part, “I’m not a rapist” and “I’m not a pedophile.” .....
In support of its detention argument, the DOJ wrote ahead of the hearing, among other things, that Allen traveled from California to Washington — specifically to the hotel where the dinner was set to take place — tracked Trump’s movements leading up to the dinner and, “armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, a .38 caliber pistol, two knives, four daggers, and enough ammunition to take dozens of lives, was apprehended by USSS [Secret Service] officers mere feet away from the ballroom where his primary target was located, along with other members of the Cabinet.”
That Trump was Allen’s “primary target” is an argument the DOJ must prove, not merely state as fact. But it has reasonable evidence to back that claim, and further evidence may emerge before a trial, if one takes place. Of course, the government’s case can degrade over time as well. It’s at an early stage. There hasn’t even been an indictment yet, though one may come soon.
In any event, Allen is presumed innocent, and it’s the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if the case goes to trial. If it gets to that point, the DOJ’s strategy might entail not only the obvious, typical plan of how to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but also how to do so without angering the president, who keeps a close grip and watch on the department.
Though prosecutors would dispute the accuracy of the derogatory description on the president’s behalf — or at least correctly argue that it’s irrelevant whether it’s true for the purposes of this criminal case against Allen— they would first need to explain to the jury why the reference so obviously applied to Trump
In part of his letter explaining “why I did any of this,” Allen allegedly wrote that “I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.” When explaining his “expected rules of engagement” in the letter, he allegedly wrote that he “would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.” As for the reference to “targets” plural, which would include more than just Trump, Allen’s alleged “expected rules of engagement” also included “Administration officials.”
When asked by a reporter for his reaction to the letter, Trump seemed upset at the reporter for asking and said, in part, “I’m not a rapist” and “I’m not a pedophile.” .....
In support of its detention argument, the DOJ wrote ahead of the hearing, among other things, that Allen traveled from California to Washington — specifically to the hotel where the dinner was set to take place — tracked Trump’s movements leading up to the dinner and, “armed with a 12-gauge shotgun, a .38 caliber pistol, two knives, four daggers, and enough ammunition to take dozens of lives, was apprehended by USSS [Secret Service] officers mere feet away from the ballroom where his primary target was located, along with other members of the Cabinet.”
That Trump was Allen’s “primary target” is an argument the DOJ must prove, not merely state as fact. But it has reasonable evidence to back that claim, and further evidence may emerge before a trial, if one takes place. Of course, the government’s case can degrade over time as well. It’s at an early stage. There hasn’t even been an indictment yet, though one may come soon.
In any event, Allen is presumed innocent, and it’s the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt if the case goes to trial. If it gets to that point, the DOJ’s strategy might entail not only the obvious, typical plan of how to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but also how to do so without angering the president, who keeps a close grip and watch on the department.
Though prosecutors would dispute the accuracy of the derogatory description on the president’s behalf — or at least correctly argue that it’s irrelevant whether it’s true for the purposes of this criminal case against Allen— they would first need to explain to the jury why the reference so obviously applied to Trump
Piro is going to have to admit that the pedophile mentioned by the Defendant was trump. This will be fun to watch
May 5, 2026
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/why-jeanine-pirro-cant-get-around-the-word-pedophile-in-the-cole-allen-case
If this case goes to trial, trump will hear that the Defendant considered him a pedophile and the prosecution will be forced to use that language to make their case
Deadline Legal Blog-Why Jeanine Pirro can't get around the word 'pedophile' in the Cole Allen case
The U.S. attorney overseeing the case against Trump’s alleged would-be assassin said she doesn’t “really care” about an inflammatory, but important, piece of evidence.
Why Jeanine Pirro can’t get around the word ‘pedophile’ in the Cole Allen case
— Resistfascism (@docdavehawaii.bsky.social) 2026-05-04T23:10:46.675Z
While there were many pedos, rapists and traitors at that event, only one man is allegedly all three.
flip.it/x-z8Wd
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/why-jeanine-pirro-cant-get-around-the-word-pedophile-in-the-cole-allen-case
When Cole Allen allegedly wrote that he was “no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes,” was he referring to President Donald Trump?
Jeanine Pirro did not want to answer that question when she was asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday.
But Pirro has reason to care. The incendiary language has legal relevance in the case her office brought against Allen. The top charge he faces is for allegedly attempting to assassinate Trump at the White House Correspondents’ dinner in the nation’s capital last month.....
The incendiary description in Allen’s alleged “Apology and Explanation” letter, which the DOJ has quoted in court filings, was on a list of points under “On to why I did any of this.” Similarly, his alleged “Expected rules of engagement” in the letter said, in part, “I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.” (As for the reference to “targets” plural, Allen’s alleged “Expected rules of engagement” also included “Administration officials.”)
Ahead of a hearing in his case last week, Allen’s lawyers observed that the letter “makes no mention of the president by name.”
Yet, DOJ lawyers in Pirro’s office assumed the defendant was talking about Trump. They wrote, “In his own words, he viewed anyone attending the Dinner as a legitimate target because they ‘chose’ to attend the President’s speech.” Though prosecutors did not quote Allen’s “pedophile, rapist, and traitor” language in making that point, they appeared to cite the defendant’s alleged writing about people who “*chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor.” That appears to be the only part of the letter that uses the word “chose.”....
Again, the question in Allen’s case is not whether the president is any of those things. But if the case goes to trial, then prosecutors may find themselves in the unenviable position of having to explain that to a jury, while Pirro may find herself having to explain to Trump why he keeps hearing about it.
It’s understandable that Pirro, a former Fox News host who may have her sights on becoming Trump’s next attorney general, does not want to address that language about the president on television. But she must understand that her prosecutors know it’s relevant in court, because they have raised it themselves.
Jeanine Pirro did not want to answer that question when she was asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday.
TAPPER: Allen does say - I apologize for using this language - 'I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist & traitor to coat my hands w/his crimes'
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-05-03T15:01:41.734Z
PIRRO: That's outrageous. There's a lot of other things you could've read
T: But is he talking about Trump?
P: Ask him. I don't really care
But Pirro has reason to care. The incendiary language has legal relevance in the case her office brought against Allen. The top charge he faces is for allegedly attempting to assassinate Trump at the White House Correspondents’ dinner in the nation’s capital last month.....
The incendiary description in Allen’s alleged “Apology and Explanation” letter, which the DOJ has quoted in court filings, was on a list of points under “On to why I did any of this.” Similarly, his alleged “Expected rules of engagement” in the letter said, in part, “I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.” (As for the reference to “targets” plural, Allen’s alleged “Expected rules of engagement” also included “Administration officials.”)
Ahead of a hearing in his case last week, Allen’s lawyers observed that the letter “makes no mention of the president by name.”
Yet, DOJ lawyers in Pirro’s office assumed the defendant was talking about Trump. They wrote, “In his own words, he viewed anyone attending the Dinner as a legitimate target because they ‘chose’ to attend the President’s speech.” Though prosecutors did not quote Allen’s “pedophile, rapist, and traitor” language in making that point, they appeared to cite the defendant’s alleged writing about people who “*chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor.” That appears to be the only part of the letter that uses the word “chose.”....
Again, the question in Allen’s case is not whether the president is any of those things. But if the case goes to trial, then prosecutors may find themselves in the unenviable position of having to explain that to a jury, while Pirro may find herself having to explain to Trump why he keeps hearing about it.
It’s understandable that Pirro, a former Fox News host who may have her sights on becoming Trump’s next attorney general, does not want to address that language about the president on television. But she must understand that her prosecutors know it’s relevant in court, because they have raised it themselves.
If this case goes to trial, trump will hear that the Defendant considered him a pedophile and the prosecution will be forced to use that language to make their case
May 5, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/in-sworn-testimony-hegseth-pushed-false-claim-about-troops-deployed-to-voting-precincts
MaddowBlog-In sworn testimony, Hegseth pushed false claim about troops deployed to voting precincts
The secretary didn’t just make a bogus claim about the Obama era, he also twice asserted very specific nonsense about the Biden era.
Pressed on whether he’d deploy troops to local voting precincts, Hegseth deflected and pushed a false claim — while under oath — about the Biden era.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-05-05T14:19:40.302Z
A week later, maybe he could give us a straight answer about the underlying question?
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/in-sworn-testimony-hegseth-pushed-false-claim-about-troops-deployed-to-voting-precincts
The defense secretary was also asked whether he would be willing to deploy U.S. troops to local voting precincts ahead of this year’s midterm elections. Instead of answering the question directly, Hegseth again looked backward, in keeping with his borderline-creepy fixation on Joe Biden.
“I will note that in 2024, troops were — that was Joe Biden, by the way, Joe Biden — were deployed to polling locations in 15 states,” Hegseth said in sworn testimony to the House Armed Services Committee. For good measure, he repeated, “2024 — Joe Biden — troops deployed to polling locations in 15 states. Explain that one to me.”
A day later, the secretary made the same claim in nearly identical wording during sworn testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Readers can probably guess where this is headed. CNN reported:
Put another way, Hegseth didn’t merely push a false claim about the Obama era, he also twice pushed a very specific false claim about the Biden era about which he got literally every detail wrong.
I will leave it to legal experts to assess whether the secretary crossed any lines by saying untrue things to Congress while under oath, but at this point, there are two questions the secretary and the Pentagon really ought to answer: 1) How and why did Hegseth prepare bogus talking points for sworn congressional testimony; and 2) Can Hegseth maybe now answer truthfully and specifically about his possible plans for the 2026 midterm elections?
“I will note that in 2024, troops were — that was Joe Biden, by the way, Joe Biden — were deployed to polling locations in 15 states,” Hegseth said in sworn testimony to the House Armed Services Committee. For good measure, he repeated, “2024 — Joe Biden — troops deployed to polling locations in 15 states. Explain that one to me.”
A day later, the secretary made the same claim in nearly identical wording during sworn testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Readers can probably guess where this is headed. CNN reported:
All of the National Guard activations connected to the 2024 election were ordered by state governors, not by Biden. And all 12 of the states that responded to CNN’s requests for information said that none of their troops were deployed to polling locations.
Rather, the states said their Guard personnel worked behind the scenes at other locations — helping with election cybersecurity or serving as internal liaisons — or that their state Guard was not actually activated for the election after all.
Put another way, Hegseth didn’t merely push a false claim about the Obama era, he also twice pushed a very specific false claim about the Biden era about which he got literally every detail wrong.
I will leave it to legal experts to assess whether the secretary crossed any lines by saying untrue things to Congress while under oath, but at this point, there are two questions the secretary and the Pentagon really ought to answer: 1) How and why did Hegseth prepare bogus talking points for sworn congressional testimony; and 2) Can Hegseth maybe now answer truthfully and specifically about his possible plans for the 2026 midterm elections?
May 5, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republicans-want-1-billion-taxpayer-money-trump-ballroom
MaddowBlog-Republicans want to spend $1 billion in taxpayer money on Trump's $400 million ballroom
The controversial vanity project was already unpopular. The GOP’s planned use of public funds is poised to make matters worse.
When the latest polling showed 2-to-1 opposition to the WH ballroom project, the survey question emphasized private financing.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-05-05T12:57:58.925Z
Now congressional Republicans want to spend billion in taxpayer money on a 0 million project.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republicans-want-1-billion-taxpayer-money-trump-ballroom
It was against this backdrop that GOP lawmakers unveiled the details of their reconciliation bill, which included an unexpected element. NBC News reported:
To be sure, the proposal isn’t just about the ballroom. On the contrary, Republicans are pushing a $72 billion reconciliation package that includes, among other things, more than $38 billion for ICE, roughly $26 billion for CBP and an additional $5 billion for DHS.
To the surprise of no one, the bill also ignores the reform measures Democrats began pushing after the shooting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota......
But it’s the $1 billion for “security adjustments and upgrades” to Trump’s ballroom vanity project that’s likely to be among the most controversial parts of the Republicans’ plan.
In case this isn’t obvious, the White House boasted last summer that the price tag for the ballroom would be $200 million, and every penny would come from private donations. By October, the price tag had grown to $250 million. Soon after, it was $300 million. Late last year, it was up to $400 million — though, again, the official line was that American taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook for the costs at all, even as the White House went out of its way to hide the identities of donors......
Put another way, congressional Republicans expect the public to pay $1 billion for a $400 million ballroom.
We’ll learn soon enough whether and to what extent the legislation changes in the coming days and weeks, but for now, GOP officials should probably keep in mind that polls show 2-to-1 opposition to the White House ballroom project, and that’s when the survey question emphasized private financing. Watch this space.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, [on Monday night] released his committee’s part of the long-term Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol funding bill, which includes $1 billion for security features related to the White House ballroom.
The funding could not be used for non-security elements, according to the legislative text.
To be sure, the proposal isn’t just about the ballroom. On the contrary, Republicans are pushing a $72 billion reconciliation package that includes, among other things, more than $38 billion for ICE, roughly $26 billion for CBP and an additional $5 billion for DHS.
To the surprise of no one, the bill also ignores the reform measures Democrats began pushing after the shooting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota......
But it’s the $1 billion for “security adjustments and upgrades” to Trump’s ballroom vanity project that’s likely to be among the most controversial parts of the Republicans’ plan.
In case this isn’t obvious, the White House boasted last summer that the price tag for the ballroom would be $200 million, and every penny would come from private donations. By October, the price tag had grown to $250 million. Soon after, it was $300 million. Late last year, it was up to $400 million — though, again, the official line was that American taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook for the costs at all, even as the White House went out of its way to hide the identities of donors......
Put another way, congressional Republicans expect the public to pay $1 billion for a $400 million ballroom.
We’ll learn soon enough whether and to what extent the legislation changes in the coming days and weeks, but for now, GOP officials should probably keep in mind that polls show 2-to-1 opposition to the White House ballroom project, and that’s when the survey question emphasized private financing. Watch this space.
May 5, 2026
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/trump-signs-executive-order-banning-eb5
The Borowitz Report-Trump Signs Executive Order Banning Seashells
Trump Signs Executive Order Banning Seashells
— Chickadee (@vtchickadee.bsky.social) 2026-05-05T11:18:10.162Z
open.substack.com/pub/borowitz...
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/trump-signs-executive-order-banning-eb5
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Calling the exoskeletons of marine mollusks “the deadliest weapons known to man,” on Tuesday Donald J. Trump signed an executive order banning seashells.
“Now the American people can sleep well at night, knowing that their president has protected them from death by seashell,” Trump told reporters during the Oval Office signing ceremony.
“Obama didn’t do anything about seashells, and neither did Biden,” he said. “I’m the only president who would do this.”
Trump used the ceremony to defend his increasingly unpopular war in the Middle East, declaring, “Iran must never be allowed to have seashells.”
“Now the American people can sleep well at night, knowing that their president has protected them from death by seashell,” Trump told reporters during the Oval Office signing ceremony.
“Obama didn’t do anything about seashells, and neither did Biden,” he said. “I’m the only president who would do this.”
Trump used the ceremony to defend his increasingly unpopular war in the Middle East, declaring, “Iran must never be allowed to have seashells.”
May 5, 2026
There are only 50 Rice Whales in existence. I hope that these various lawsuits succeed in blocking Hegseth
MS NOW-Here's why Pete Hegseth's war on the Endangered Species Act is so misguided
The administration argues that it needs exemptions to the Endangered Species Act to extract more oil form the Gulf of Mexico when it’s already extracting record amounts.
https://x.com/moonbreeze2/status/2041426605478699047
https://www.ms.now/opinion/hegseth-endangered-species-gulf-whale
Nicknamed the “God Squad” for its power to rule whether economic or national security interests outweigh the possibility of wiping out an animal species, the Endangered Species Committee has granted two exemptions to the Endangered Species Act since it was created by Congress in 1978. It is composed of the secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture and the Army, and the heads of the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Council of Economic Advisers.....
Never mind that one of those species is the Rice’s whale, which NOAA itself acknowledges is one of the rarest in the world. The whale exists only in the Gulf, with perhaps 50 or so left.
That obviously means nothing to Trump and Hegseth, who are both so maddened that they have become modern Ahabs chasing a Moby Dick. In his right-wing Christian crusade, Hegseth openly prays for every bullet and missile to “find its mark” in war. In the war for oil, he obviously is not interested in hearing about collateral damage, saying: “Disruptions to Gulf oil production doesn’t hurt just us, it benefits our adversaries. We cannot allow our own rules to weaken our standing and strengthen those who wish to harm us. When development in the Gulf is chilled, we are prevented from producing the energy we need as a country and as a department.”
Rice’s whale is hardly the only creature that could be decimated with ramped-up oil production. According to NOAA, the gulf is also a habitat for the endangered sperm whale; the endangered hawksbill, leatherback and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles; and the endangered pillar coral. There is also a host of other animals listed as “threatened,” such as loggerhead and green sea turtles, Nassau grouper, the giant manta ray and queen conch......
There is reason to be optimistic that, like the ultimate withdrawal of the 1992 spotted owl exemption, that this one for the Gulf of Mexico will eventually be blocked by litigation and public protest. The day before Burgum convened the Endangered Species Committee, a federal judge in California invalidated several Endangered Species Act rollbacks concocted during the first Trump administration that allowed agencies to increasingly ignore the harm of projects to wildlife.
The judge, Jon Tigar, said the administration made “serious” errors in an “arbitrary and capricious” effort to gut the Endangered Species Act. Let us hope that the courts continue to find yet more errors with the exemption for the Gulf of Mexico. Fifty whales by themselves don’t stand a chance against the rhetoric of keeping gas under $5 a gallon. The Trump administration is today’s Ahab lunging over its ship with a harpoon. This time, the whale really could be killed in the hunt for oil.
Never mind that one of those species is the Rice’s whale, which NOAA itself acknowledges is one of the rarest in the world. The whale exists only in the Gulf, with perhaps 50 or so left.
After 15 whole minutes of discussion, the Endangered Species Committee (100% Trump appointees) decided that oil & gas companies in the Gulf of Mexico don't need to exert any caution anymore to protect endangered whales, turtles, or other wildlife.
— Liz Neeley (@lizneeley.bsky.social) 2026-04-04T03:18:37.088Z
www.washingtonpost.com/climate-envi...
That obviously means nothing to Trump and Hegseth, who are both so maddened that they have become modern Ahabs chasing a Moby Dick. In his right-wing Christian crusade, Hegseth openly prays for every bullet and missile to “find its mark” in war. In the war for oil, he obviously is not interested in hearing about collateral damage, saying: “Disruptions to Gulf oil production doesn’t hurt just us, it benefits our adversaries. We cannot allow our own rules to weaken our standing and strengthen those who wish to harm us. When development in the Gulf is chilled, we are prevented from producing the energy we need as a country and as a department.”
Rice’s whale is hardly the only creature that could be decimated with ramped-up oil production. According to NOAA, the gulf is also a habitat for the endangered sperm whale; the endangered hawksbill, leatherback and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles; and the endangered pillar coral. There is also a host of other animals listed as “threatened,” such as loggerhead and green sea turtles, Nassau grouper, the giant manta ray and queen conch......
There is reason to be optimistic that, like the ultimate withdrawal of the 1992 spotted owl exemption, that this one for the Gulf of Mexico will eventually be blocked by litigation and public protest. The day before Burgum convened the Endangered Species Committee, a federal judge in California invalidated several Endangered Species Act rollbacks concocted during the first Trump administration that allowed agencies to increasingly ignore the harm of projects to wildlife.
The judge, Jon Tigar, said the administration made “serious” errors in an “arbitrary and capricious” effort to gut the Endangered Species Act. Let us hope that the courts continue to find yet more errors with the exemption for the Gulf of Mexico. Fifty whales by themselves don’t stand a chance against the rhetoric of keeping gas under $5 a gallon. The Trump administration is today’s Ahab lunging over its ship with a harpoon. This time, the whale really could be killed in the hunt for oil.
There are only 50 Rice Whales in existence. I hope that these various lawsuits succeed in blocking Hegseth
May 5, 2026
Iran is attacking the Fujairah Oil Industry Zone in the UAE
If/when the cease fire breaks down, Iran has a host of targets to his including key refineries. The Fujairah Oil Industry Zone in the UAE is a key facility for the UAE.
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2051370486458650731
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PMNumber of posts: 181,751