Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump administration proposes canceling public lands rule

Published

on

Trump administration proposes canceling public lands rule

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Wednesday proposed canceling a public land management rule that put conservation on equal footing with developmentas President Donald Trump’s administration seeks to open more taxpayer-owned tracts to drilling, logging, mining and grazing.

The rule was a key part of efforts under former President Joe Biden to refocus the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, which oversees about 10% of land in the U.S. Adopted last year, it allowed public property to be leased for restoration in the same way that oil companies lease land for drilling.

Industry and agriculture groups were bitterly opposed to the Biden rule and lobbied Republicans to reverse it. States including North Dakota, where Burgum served as governor before joining Trump’s Cabinet, pursued a lawsuit hoping to block the rule.

Wednesday’s announcement comes amid a flurry of actions since Trump took office aimed at boosting energy production from the federal government’s vast land holdings, which are concentrated in Western states including Alaska, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.

Interior officials said the Biden rule sidelined people who depend on public lands for their livelihoods and imposed unneeded restrictions. No conservation leases had been issued under the new rule, they said.

Burgum said in a statement that it could have blocked energy and mineral production, logging, grazing and recreation across hundreds of thousands of acres. Overturning the rule “protects our American way of life and gives our communities a voice in the land that they depend on,” Burgum said.

Environmentalists had largely embraced the rule finalized in April 2024. Supporters argued that conservation was a long-neglected facet of the land bureau’s mission under the 1976 Federal Lands Policy Management Act.

“The administration cannot simply overthrow that statutory authority because they would prefer to let drilling and mining companies call the shots,” said Alison Flint, senior legal director at The Wilderness Society.

While the bureau previously issued leases for conservation purposes in limited cases, it never had a dedicated program for it.

Critics said the change under Biden violated the “multiple use” mandate for Interior Department lands, by catapulting the “non-use” of federal lands — meaning restoration leases — to a position of prominence.

National Mining Association CEO Rich Nolan said Burgum’s proposal would ensure the nation’s natural resources are available to address rising energy demands and supply important minerals.

“This is a welcome change from the prior clear disregard for the legal obligation to balance multiple uses on federal lands,” Nolan said.

The rule also promoted the designation of more “areas of critical environmental concern” — a special status that can restrict development. It’s given to land with historic or cultural significance or that’s important for wildlife conservation.

In addition to its surface land holdings, the land bureau regulates publicly-owned underground mineral reserves — such as coal for power plants and lithium for renewable energy — across more than 1 million square miles (2.5 million square kilometers). The bureau has a history of industry-friendly policies and for more than a century has sold grazing permits and oil and gas leases.

The pending publication of Burgum’s proposal will kick off a 60-day public comment period.

House Republicans last week repealed land management plans adopted in the closing days of former President Joe Biden’s administration that restricted development in large areas of Alaska, Montana and North Dakota. Interior officials also announced a proposal aimed at increasing mining and drilling in Western states with populations of greater sage grouse. Biden administration officials proposed limits on development and prohibitions against mining to help protect the grouse.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Comer’s excuses for DOJ fall flat as he concedes it ‘botched’ Epstein files

Published

on

Comer’s excuses for DOJ fall flat as he concedes it ‘botched’ Epstein files

“Botched.” That was apparently House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer’s, R-Ky., assessment of the Justice Department’s handling, or mishandling, of the Epstein files under President Donald Trump. Comer made his critical comments to BLN on Monday night, awkwardly enough, during an attempt to defend the administration from criticism.

Comer also cast some blame on Jeffrey Epstein’s victims for delaying the release of files related to the late sex criminal, suggesting that class action lawsuits and victims’ demands for redactions have caused holdups, despite a federal law and congressional subpoena requiring the release of the vast majority of files related to Epstein.

This explanation doesn’t account for the department withholding documents detailing sexual assault allegations against Trump and other wealthy Epstein associates (all of whom have denied any wrongdoing). Comer’s excuse also doesn’t seem to explain a heavily redacted document that details a 2015 probe by the Drug Enforcement Administration into whether Epstein and others used drugs in connection with a prostitution ring. And of course, it doesn’t account for the inadequate redactions that exposed many victims’ names and personal details when some documents were initially released.

When BLN’s Jake Tapper noted the Trump administration has not released the files as mandated and has redacted names of individuals in Epstein’s inner circle, the chairman was seemingly forced to concede.

“Well, I think the Justice Department has botched this,” Comer said. “I don’t think anyone in America — Republican or, you know, avid Trump supporter — would defend the way that this has been rolled out.”

Some might say “botched” is too generous a characterization, given it suggests there was, at some point, a meaningful attempt to meet public expectations and comply with the law.

I can also think of more than a few Republicans who have defended and continue to defend the way the administration has handled the Epstein files, including TrumpAttorney General Pam Bondi and House Speaker Mike JohnsonR-La.

Comer himself has repeatedly thanked the administration for its “commitment to transparency.”

But Comer’s comment Monday was a prime example of the honesty that slips out of the chairman when he’s trying to defend Trump and his allies while discussing Epstein. Another example came in early March, when he said the DOJ in Trump’s first term moved to kill a 2019 state probe into Epstein’s New Mexico ranch.

“The federal government asked New Mexico to stop their investigation, I believe back in 2019, of that ranch,” Comer told Fox News. “So there’s just so many questions about how the government failed the victims and how government failed in trying to prosecute Epstein sooner. I mean, this whole thing doesn’t make sense.”

Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Hegseth’s unprecedented embrace of Christian nationalism sparks backlash

Published

on

Hegseth’s unprecedented embrace of Christian nationalism sparks backlash

Toward the end of Monday’s briefing, a reporter reminded White House press secretary Caroline Leavitt that Pope Leo XIVin remarks delivered on Palm Sunday, said God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.” Citing a Bible passage, the pontiff added, “Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: Your hands are full of blood.”

Asked for her reaction, Leavitt replied“I don’t think there’s anything wrong with our military leaders or with the president calling on the American people to pray for our service members and those who are serving our country overseas.”

Part of the problem, of course, is that no prominent political figures have argued there is something wrong with praying for service members. But the other element to this is some are going far further than simply calling on the public to pray for U.S. troops.

Take Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, for example. The Washington Post reported earlier this week:

[L]ongtime norms are being upended by the proselytizing Christian campaign of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, say multiple former high-ranking military officials and experts on religion and law. Rather than boosting cohesion through a more universal spiritual uplift, they say, the new approach violates the Constitution and undermines the bonds of mutual respect between troops that are essential, especially in wartime.

The scope of the beleaguered Pentagon chief’s embrace of Christian nationalism is quite broad. In recent months, Hegseth has:

At an event last week, Hegseth took matters to a new level when he prayed for U.S. troops to inflict “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy. … We ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ.”

In case this isn’t obvious, Hegseth is as free as every other American to worship, or not, as he pleases. His religiosity is his own business.

But as has become clear in recent weeks, the defense secretary isn’t just exercising his faith in line with his conscience, he’s also erasing the First Amendment’s church-state line and incorporating Christian nationalism into his wartime message in ways without precedent in the American tradition.

Retired Army Col. Larry Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Colin Powell during Powell’s tenures as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state, told the Post, “The American military has had a remarkable ride of equanimity and fairness and justice and all manner of good adjectives with regard to religion. It’s done this in a way that’s really remarkable — until now.”

The New Republic’s Greg Sargent had a related report this week:

If Hegseth truly believes his war on Iran is unfolding in accordance with his conception of biblical law — the highest authority of all — then that explains why he treats all those niggling secular constraints as unbinding on him. Maximum violence and killing of the enemy — who cry out to God but, unlike Hegseth, don’t get an answer back from Him — are affirmatively good.

‘It’s not the way somebody who claims to be a person of God — a religious person — should think,’ [Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona]who has flown many combat missions himself, told me. War, he added, ‘is a morally and ethically complicated thing for any person. Any serious warfighter struggles with it.’ If we don’t wrestle with this, Kelly said, we’ll ‘start to lose ourselves.’

Looking ahead, there are limited options to curtail the defense secretary’s public advocacy of Christian nationalism — Donald Trump could intervene, though that seems exceedingly unlikely — but Hegseth’s critics are not powerless. On the contrary, some of the Pentagon chief’s policies related to religious promotion have already sparked litigationwhich opens the door to possible court-imposed limits. Watch this space.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Why is Trump’s DHS wildly overpaying for ICE warehouse detention centers?

Published

on

Why is Trump’s DHS wildly overpaying for ICE warehouse detention centers?

This is an adapted excerpt from the March 30 episode of “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

On Monday morning, a 10-foot-tall golden toilet appeared at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., along with a plaque that reads “A throne fit for a king.”

“In a time of unprecedented division, escalating conflict and economic turmoil, President Trump focused on what really mattered: Remodeling the Lincoln Bathroom in the White House,” the plaque continued, adding that the giant toilet “stands as a tribute to an unwavering visionary who looked down, saw a problem, and painted it gold.”

A golden toilet sculpture sits on the National Mall.
A golden toilet sculpture sits on the National Mall on March 31, 2026. Heather Diehl / Getty Images

This weekend, that gold-toilet president was also the target of one of the largest single-day nationwide demonstrations in American history. Organizers estimate that more than 8 million Americans joined the third day of No Kings protests against Donald Trump in 10 months.

One of the places where the local press reported a steep increase in participation compared with previous anti-Trump and No Kings protests was in Hagerstown, Marylandwhere an estimated 3,000 people took part in a demonstration at the public square.

In Hagerstown, the banner for the protest wasn’t just “No Kings,” it was “No Kings, No Camps.” Just outside that city, the administration has been trying to build one of its Trump prison campswhich would hold thousands of people without trial.

The grassroots group Maryland Coalition to Stop the Camps asked people to come from all over the state to Hagerstown to show opposition to the prison camp that Trump is trying to put there.

This piece of this story is worth watching right now, especially after Kristi Noem was ousted as homeland security secretary and a new guy, former Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullinis taking over.

One of the things that has emerged about the warehouse purchases the administration has been making for its prison camps is that for some reason the government appears to have been eager to wildly overpay.

In Salt Lake City, the administration paid almost 50% more than the property appeared to be worth. It was assessed at $97 million, and the government paid more than $145 million. In Roxbury, New Jersey, one warehouse was assessed at $62 million, but the Trump administration came in and offered $129 million for it — more than double the cost. In Georgia, one of the properties valued last year at $26 million was purchased for $129 million.

On Friday, The Washington Post reported on an internal department memo that circulated last week, the day after Mullin was sworn in as the new head of Homeland Security. The memo reportedly said that the process of turning these warehouses into Trump prison camps was going to be slowed down and that the proposals for these facilities are going to be revised to start incorporating feedback from stakeholders — whatever that means — before they move ahead.

Simultaneously, CNN reported that there is a new inspector general investigation into alleged corruption at the department concerning the soliciting and handling of contracts, including the involvement of Noem and her top adviser, Corey Lewandowski.

There was already an audit that had been sparked in the department; now, on top of that, there’s a new and apparently urgent investigation, which reportedly included investigators searching the offices of one Homeland Security official who had been placed in a job at the agency by Noem and Lewandowski.

That investigation came after NBC News reported on March 19 that Lewandowski reportedly sought multimillion-dollar payments from companies contracting with Homeland Security, including companies that operate immigration prisons.

Lewandowski has denied the allegations. Democratic members of Congress have now opened their own investigation into what has been going on there.

Earlier this month in Social Circle, Georgia, town officials put a lock on the water meter at a warehouse that the Trump administration is trying to turn into a prison there. In Salt Lake City, officials voted to cap the amount of water that the federal government would be allowed to use at a warehouse it wants to convert to a prison, one that it appears the administration overpaid $48 million for.

Why’d they do that? Who made off with that money? Whose pockets just got stuffed with tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money?

That stink is what you think it is: It smells like corruption. It’s the kind of behavior for which kings and dictators are famous.

But on Wednesday, the Trump administration will try to make its most radical move yet against immigrants. It will argue before the Supreme Court that when the Constitution says that anyone born in this country is an American, the Constitution didn’t really mean that.

Everyone calls this the birthright citizenship case, but no one who’s not a lawyer instinctively knows what that means. What it means is that anyone born in this country is an American by virtue of the fact that they were born here.

But now, the Trump administration is trying to change that. It wants to assess the allegiance and the loyalty of a person’s parents before it decides if that person — born here, in this country  — can be considered American.

The last time we had massive domestic prison camps in this country, to hold people indefinitely and without trial, was in World War II, when the U.S. government locked up Japanese Americans for yearsregardless of their citizenship, on the theory that their race alone made them dangerous.

Japanese American groups and experts on their wartime incarceration have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in that case ahead of the oral arguments this week.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration will try to make its most radical move yet against immigrants.

Law professor Eric Muller of the University of North Carolina is a nationally recognized expert on what happened to Japanese Americans during the war. He’s written four books on the topic.

In his friend-of-the-court briefhe explained, sort of patiently, that even in World War II — when we were so panicked about the loyalties and the allegiances of whole huge swaths of people, so much so that we created effectively a concentration camp system to lock up an entire ethnic group for years on the basis of how scared we were about their supposed loyalties and allegiances —  if the citizens of Japan who we had locked up had babies inside the camps, there was no controversy at all about the fact that those babies were definitely American.

Beyond that, when people had renounced their American citizenship, and we had them locked up in prison camps, if they had babies here, there was no question that their babies were Americans.

Even beyond that, the United States in World War II went so far as to grab a bunch of people who had no ties to America whatsoever, including people of Japanese descent from Peruand force them to come to this country to be put in prison so they could be used in prisoner swaps with Japan.

These were Peruvians of Japanese descent who were only in this country because they were forced against their will to be here, but still, when they had babies in American prison camps during the war, those babies were uncontroversially considered to be American citizens.

But under Trump, who has entrusted the wise and prudent stewardship of immigration matters to people like Noem, Lewandowski and now Mullin, the federal government is now going to tell the Supreme Court that the Constitution has been wrong all this time and that it is he, Trump, who, neutrally and with an even hand, will assess a person’s loyalties and allegiances before it’s decided if they are really an American.

The administration is dragging that stinking heap up to the door of the Supreme Court this very week, the same week that more than 8 million Americans from every single corner of the country came out full tilt and full blast to say No Kings.

No thrones. No golden toilets. No crowns. No camps.

That’s where we are. That’s where we stand. Game on.

Allison Detzel contributed.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending