weaken

BOOTHBAY HARBOR, Maine — Republican lawmakers are targeting one of the country’s longest-standing pieces of environmental legislation, credited with helping save rare whales from extinction.

GOP leaders believe they now have the political will to remove key pieces of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, enacted in 1972 to protect whales, seals, polar bears and other sea animals. The law also places restrictions on commercial fishermen, shippers and other marine industries.

A Republican-led bill in the works has support from fishermen in Maine who say the law makes lobster fishing more difficult, lobbyists for big-money species such as tuna in Hawaii and crab in Alaska, and marine manufacturers who see the law as antiquated.

Conservation groups adamantly oppose the changes and say weakening the law will erase years of hard-won gains for jeopardized species such as the vanishing North Atlantic right whale, which is vulnerable to entanglement in fishing gear. There are fewer than 400 right whales remaining.

Here’s what to know about the protection act and the proposed changes.

Why the 1972 law still matters

“The Marine Mammal Protection Act is important because it’s one of our bedrock laws that help us to base conservation measures on the best available science,” said Kathleen Collins, senior marine campaign manager with International Fund for Animal Welfare. “Species on the brink of extinction have been brought back.”

It was enacted the year before the Endangered Species Act, at a time when the movement to save whales from extinction was growing. Scientist Roger Payne had discovered that whales could sing in the late 1960s, and their voices soon appeared on record albums and throughout popular culture.

The law protects all marine mammals and prohibits capturing or killing them in U.S. waters or by U.S. citizens on the high seas. It allowed for preventative measures to stop commercial fishing ships and other businesses from accidentally harming animals such as whales and seals. The animals can be harmed by entanglement in fishing gear, collisions with ships and other hazards at sea.

The law also prevents the hunting of marine mammals, including polar bears, with exceptions for Indigenous groups. Some of those animals can be legally hunted in other countries.

Changes to oil and gas operations

Republican Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska, a state with a large fishing industry, submitted a draft this summer that would roll back aspects of the law. The bill says the act has “unduly and unnecessarily constrained government, tribes and the regulated community” since its inception.

The proposal states that it would make changes such as lowering population goals for marine mammals from “maximum productivity” to the level needed to “support continued survival.” It would also ease rules on what constitutes harm to marine mammals.

For example, the law prevents harassment of sea mammals such as whales and defines harassment as activities that have “the potential to injure a marine mammal.” The proposed changes would limit the definition to activities that actually injure the animals. That change could have major implications for industries such as oil and gas exploration where rare whales live.

That poses an existential threat to the Rice’s whale, which numbers only in the dozens and lives in the Gulf of Mexico, conservationists said. And the proposal takes specific aim at the North Atlantic right whale protections with a clause that would delay rules designed to protect that declining whale population until 2035.

Begich and his staff did not return calls for comment on the bill, and his staff declined to provide an update about where it stands in Congress. Begich has said he wants “a bill that protects marine mammals and also works for the people who live and work alongside them, especially in Alaska.”

Fishing groups want restrictions loosened

A coalition of fishing groups from both coasts has come out in support of the proposed changes. Some of the same groups lauded a previous effort by the Trump administration to reduce regulatory burdens on commercial fishing.

The groups said in a July letter to House members that they believe Begich’s changes reflect “a positive and necessary step” for American fisheries’ success.

Restrictions imposed on lobster fishermen of Maine are designed to protect the right whale, but they often provide little protection for the animals while limiting one of America’s signature fisheries, said Virginia Olsen, political director of the Maine Lobstering Union. The restrictions stipulate where lobstermen can fish and what kinds of gear they can use. The whales are vulnerable to lethal entanglement in heavy fishing rope.

Gathering more accurate data about right whales while revising the original law would help protect the animals, Olsen said.

“We do not want to see marine mammals harmed; we need a healthy, vibrant ocean and a plentiful marine habitat to continue Maine’s heritage fishery,” Olsen said.

Some members of other maritime industries have also called on Congress to update the law. The National Marine Manufacturers Assn. said in a statement that the rules have not kept pace with advancements in the marine industry, making innovation in the business difficult.

Environmentalists fight back

Numerous environmental groups have vowed to fight to save the protection act. They characterized the proposed changes as part of the Trump administration’s assault on environmental protections.

The act was instrumental in protecting the humpback whale, one of the species most beloved by whale watchers, said Gib Brogan, senior campaign director with Oceana. Along with other sea mammals, humpbacks would be in jeopardy without it, he said.

“The Marine Mammal Protection Act is flexible. It works. It’s effective. We don’t need to overhaul this law at this point,” Brogan said.

What does this mean for seafood imports

The original law makes it illegal to import marine mammal products without a permit and allows the U.S. to impose import prohibitions on seafood products from foreign fisheries that don’t meet U.S. standards.

The import embargoes are a major sticking point because they punish American businesses, said Gavin Gibbons, chief strategy officer of the National Fisheries Institute, a Virginia-based seafood industry trade group. It’s critical to source seafood globally to be able to meet American demand for seafood, he said.

The National Fisheries Institute and a coalition of industry groups sued the federal government Thursday over what they described as unlawful implementation of the protection act. Gibbons said the groups don’t oppose the act but want to see it responsibly implemented.

“Our fisheries are well regulated and appropriately fished to their maximum sustainable yield,” Gibbons said. “The men and women who work our waters are iconic and responsible. They can’t be expected to just fish more here to make up a deficit while jeopardizing the sustainability they’ve worked so hard to maintain.”

Some environmental groups said the Republican lawmakers’ proposed changes could weaken American seafood competitiveness by allowing imports from poorly regulated foreign fisheries.

Whittle writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Historically, the U.S. military has been an engine for cultural and social change in America. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s vision for the armed forces he leads runs counter to that.

In comments Tuesday to hundreds of military leaders and their chief enlisted advisers, Hegseth made clear he was not interested in a diverse or inclusive force. His address at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, verbalized what Hegseth has been doing as he takes on any program that can be labeled diversity, equity or inclusion, as well as targeting transgender personnel. Separately, the focus on immigration also is sweeping up veterans.

For too long, “the military has been forced by foolish and reckless politicians to focus on the wrong things. In many ways, this speech is about fixing decades of decay, some of it obvious, some of it hidden,” Hegseth said. “Foolish and reckless political leaders set the wrong compass heading, and we lost our way. We became the woke department, but not anymore.”

Hegseth’s actions — and plans for more — are a reversal of the role the military has often played.

“The military has often been ahead of at least some broader social, cultural, political movements,” said Ronit Stahl, associate professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley. ”The desegregation of the armed forces is perhaps the most classic example.”

President Harry S. Truman’s desegregation order in 1948 came six years before the Supreme Court ordered school desegregation in the Brown vs. Board of Education case — and, Stahl said, “that obviously takes a long time to implement, if it ever fully is implemented.”

It has been a circuitous path

Truman’s order was not a short progression through American society. Although the military was one of the few places where there was organizational diversity, the races did not mix in their actual service. Units like the Tuskegee Airmen, the Navajo Code Talkers and the Buffalo Soldiers, formed in 1866, were segregated until the order opened the door to integrated units.

Women were given full status to serve in 1948 with the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act. There were restrictions on how many could serve and they were generally not allowed to command men or serve in combat. Before then, they had wartime roles and they did not serve in combat, although hundreds of nurses died and women were pilots, including Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASPs.

The WASPs and Tuskegee Airmen were among the first groups this year to be affected when Hegseth issued his DEI order. The Air Force removed training videos of the airmen along with ones showing the World War II contributions of the WASPs at the basic training base in San Antonio. The videos were restored after widespread bipartisan outcry over their removal.

Other issues over time have included “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy that allowed gay and lesbian service members to serve as long as their sexual orientation was not public. That was repealed during the Obama administration. Women were allowed to serve on combat aircraft and combat ships in the early 1990s — then all combat positions after a ban was lifted in 2015.

“The military has always had to confront the question of social change and the question of who would serve, how they would serve and in what capacity they would serve. These are questions that have been long-standing back to the founding in some ways, but certainly in the 20th century,” said David Kieran, distinguished chair in Military History at Columbus State University in Columbus, Georgia. “These are not new questions.”

Generally the answer has come down to what “the military writ large” has concluded. “‘How do we achieve our mission best?’” Kieran said. “And a lot of these things have been really hotly debated.”

Part of a larger, longer debate

Kieran offered one example: changes the Army made in the 1960s when it was dealing with a climate of racism and racial tensions. Without that, he said, “the military can’t fight the war in Vietnam effectively.”

The same considerations were given to how to address the problem of sexual harassment. Part of the answer involved what was morally right, but “the larger issue is: If soldiers are being harassed, can the Army carry out its mission effectively?”

While “it is important to see these actions as part of a longer history and a larger debate,” Kieran said, “it’s certainly also true that the current administration is moving at a far more aggressive and faster pace than we’ve seen in earlier administrations.”

Michael O’Hanlon, director of research in the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution, questioned some of the actions that Trump’s Defense Department has taken, including replacing the chairman of the joint chiefs, Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr.

“He was a fine Air Force officer,” O’Hanlon said. Even if he got the job in part because of his race, “it wouldn’t be disqualifying in my book, unless he was unqualified — and he wasn’t.”

Matthew Delmont, a professor of history at Dartmouth College, said the current attitudes he is seeing toward the military suggest a misunderstanding of the armed forces and why the changes have been made.

“The military, for more than seven decades now, has been more on the leading edge in terms of figuring out how to put together an organization that tries to take advantage of the talents and capacities of all Americans,” Delmont said. Since Truman signed his executive order, “the military has moved faster and farther than almost any other organization in thinking about issues of racial equality, and then later thinking about the issues related to gender and sexuality.”

Delmont said bias, prejudice and racism remain in the military, but the armed services have done more “than a lot of corporations, universities, other organizations to try to address those head-on.”

“I wouldn’t say it was because they were particularly interested in trying to advance the social agenda,” he said. “I think they did it because they recognized you can’t have a unified fighting force if the troops are fighting each other, or if you’re actively turning away people who desire to serve their country.”

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

Last week, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, who shows more fealty to President Trump than to the U.S. Constitution she swore to uphold, filed a complaint against the only federal judge who has initiated contempt proceedings against the government for defying his orders.

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, she alleged, had undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary by making “improper public comments” about Trump to a group of federal judges that included Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

What is Boasberg alleged to have said?

No transcript has emerged, but according to Bondi’s complaint, at a March session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Boasberg is alleged to have expressed “a belief that the Trump Administration would ‘disregard rulings of the federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis.’ ”

The Judicial Conference is the perfect place to air such concerns. It is the policy-making body for the federal judiciary, and twice a year about two dozen federal judges, including the Supreme Court chief justice, meet to discuss issues relevant to their work. Recently, for example, they created a task force to deal with threats of physical violence, which have heightened considerably in the Trump era. But nothing that happens in their private sessions could reasonably be construed as “public comments.”

“The Judicial Conference is not a public setting. It’s an internal governing body of the judiciary, and there is no expectation that what gets said is going to be broadcast to the world,” explained former U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who spent seven years as director of the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, a kind of think tank for the judiciary. I reached out to Fogel because he is part of a coalition of retired federal judges — the Article III Coalition of the nonpartisan civic education group Keep Our Republic — whose goal is to defend the independence of the judiciary and promote understanding of the rule of law.

Bondi’s complaint accuses Boasberg of attempting to “transform a routine housekeeping agenda into a forum to persuade the Chief Justice and other federal judges of his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would violate court orders.”

You know how they say that every accusation is a confession in Trump World?

A mere four days after Boasberg raised his concerns to fellow federal judges, the Trump administration defied his order against the deportation of Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador.

You probably remember that one. A plane carrying the deportees was already in the air, and despite the judge’s ruling, Trump officials refused to order its return. “Oopsie,” tweeted El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele after it landed. “Too late!”

Thus began the administration’s ongoing pattern of ignoring or flouting the courts in cases brought against it. It’s not as if the signs were not there. “He who saves his Country does not violate any law,” Trump wrote on social media in February, paraphrasing Napoleon Bonaparte, the dictatorial 19th century emperor of France.

In June, Erez Reuveni, a career Department of Justice attorney who was fired when he told a Maryland judge the government had deported someone in error, provided documents to Congress that implicated Emil Bove, Trump’s one-time criminal defense attorney, in efforts to violate Boasberg’s order to halt the deportation of the Venezuelans. According to Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint, Bove, who was acting deputy attorney general at the time, said the administration should consider telling judges who order deportations halted, “F— you.”

Bove denied it. And last week, even though other Justice Department whistleblowers corroborated Reuveni’s complaint, Bove was narrowly confirmed by the Senate to a lifetime appointment as a federal appeals court judge.

“The Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders,” wrote Bondi in her complaint against Boasberg. This is laughable.

A July 21 Washington Post analysis found that Trump and his appointees have been credibly accused of flouting court rulings in a third of more than 160 lawsuits against the administration in which a judge has issued a substantive ruling. The cases have involved immigration, and cuts to the federal funding and the federal work force. That record suggests, according to the Post, “widespread noncompliance with America’s legal system.”

Legal experts told the Post that this pattern is unprecedented and is a threat to our system of checks and balances at a moment when the executive branch is asserting “vast powers that test the boundaries of the law and Constitution.”

It’s no secret that Trump harbors autocratic ambitions. He adores Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán, who has transformed the Hungarian justice system into an instrument of his own will and killed off the country’s independent media. “It’s like we’re twins,” Trump said in 2019, after hosting Orbán at the White House. Trump has teased that he might try to seek an unconstitutional third term. He de-legitimizes the press. His acolytes in Congress will not restrain him. And now he has trained his sights on the independent judiciary urging punishment of judges who thwart his agenda.

On social media, he has implied that Boasberg is “a radical left lunatic,” and wrote, “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

Some of Trump’s lapdogs in the House immediately introduced articles of impeachment (which are likely to go nowhere).

Roberts was moved to rebuke Trump: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” he said in a statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Some described his words as “stern.” I found them to be rather mild, considering the damage Trump’s rhetoric inflicts on the well-being of judges.

“It’s part of a longer term pattern of trying to … weaken the ability of the judiciary to put checks on executive power, ” Fogel told me. He is not among those who think we are in a constitutional crisis. Yet.

“Our Constitution has safeguards in it,” Fogel said. “Federal judges have lifetime tenure. We are in a period of Supreme Court jurisprudence that has given the executive a lot of leeway, but I don’t think it’s unlimited.”

I wish I shared his confidence.

Bluesky: @rabcarian
Threads: @rabcarian

Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to issue an executive order Wednesday allowing Los Angeles-area governments to limit development in wildfire-affected neighborhoods by exempting them from provisions of a landmark housing law, a spokesperson for his office said.

The proposed order would let the city and county of Los Angeles and Malibu restrict construction that was allowed under Senate Bill 9, a 2021 law that allows property owners build as many as four units on land previously reserved for single-family homes.

The order would apply to Pacific Palisades and parts of Malibu and Altadena — areas that burned in January’s Palisades and Eaton fires that are designated as “very high fire hazard severity zones” by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said.

The decision came after concerns about the potential of a significant population increase if there were widespread use of SB 9 developments in rebuilding areas, making future fire evacuations even more difficult, Gallegos said.

The governor’s plan follows pressure this week from elected officials in Los Angeles. On Monday, City Councilmember Traci Park, who represents Pacific Palisades, sent a letter to Newsom requesting that he suspend SB 9, warning that otherwise there could be “an unforeseen explosion of density” in a risky area.

“When SB 9 was adopted into state law, it was never intended to capitalize on a horrific disaster,” Park wrote.

On Tuesday, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass released a statement supporting Park’s request, citing similar concerns about SB 9 straining evacuation routes and local infrastructure in the Palisades.

“It could fundamentally alter the safety of the area,” Bass said.

The UK jobs market has weakened further as the number of job vacancies continues to fall and wage growth slows, according to official statistics.

The annual rate of pay growth in the three months between March and May was 5%, the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show.

Meanwhile, the number of vacancies has fallen again to 727,000, marking three continuous years of falling job openings.

The ONS said survey data suggested that some firms may not be recruiting new workers or replacing ones who have left.

The number of job vacancies is now at its lowest in 10 years, excluding the plunge seen during the pandemic when lockdowns stopped firms from hiring.

Alongside falling job openings, the unemployment rate has risen to 4.7%, the highest for four years, although the ONS has said this data needs to be treated with caution due to problems with how it is collected.

The labour market data is one of things the Bank of England will look at next month when it decides whether or not to cut interest rates.

It may choose to cut rates to boost the labour market or raise them to reduce inflation by encouraging less spending. Most economists are predicting a cut.

Earlier this week, in an interview with the Times, the Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey indicated there could be larger cuts to interest rates if the jobs market showed signs of slowing down.