
Trump administration pulls US out of agreement to help restore salmon in the Columbia River
SEATTLE (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday pulled the U.S. out of an agreement with Washington, Oregon and four American Indian tribes to work together to restore salmon populations and boost tribal clean energy development in the Pacific Northwest, deriding the plan as 'radical environmentalism' that could have resulted in the breaching of four controversial dams on the Snake River.
The deal, known as the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement, was reached in late 2023 and heralded by the Biden administration, tribes and conservationists as historic. It allowed for a pause in decades of litigation over
the harm the federal government's operation of dams
in the Northwest has done to the fish.
Under it, the federal government said it planned to spend more than $1 billion over a decade to help recover depleted salmon runs. The government also said that it would build enough new clean energy projects in the Pacific Northwest to replace the hydropower generated by the Lower Snake River dams — the Ice Harbor, Little Goose, Lower Monumental and Lower Granite — should Congress ever agree to remove them.
In a statement, the White House said former President Joe Biden's decision to sign the agreement 'placed concerns about climate change above the Nation's interests in reliable energy sources.'
Conservations groups, Democratic members of Congress and the Northwest tribes criticized Trump's action.
'Donald Trump doesn't know the first thing about the Northwest and our way of life — so of course, he is abruptly and unilaterally upending a historic agreement that finally put us on a path to salmon recovery, while preserving stable dam operations for growers and producers, public utilities, river users, ports and others throughout the Northwest,' Democratic U.S. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington said in a written statement. 'This decision is grievously wrong and couldn't be more shortsighted.'
Basin was once world's greatest salmon-producing river system
The Columbia River Basin, an area roughly the size of Texas, was once the world's greatest salmon-producing river system, with at least 16 stocks of salmon and steelhead. Today, four are extinct and seven are listed under the Endangered Species Act. Another iconic but endangered Northwest species, a population of killer whales, also depend on the salmon.
The construction of the first dams on the main Columbia River, including the Grand Coulee and Bonneville dams in the 1930s, provided jobs during the Great Depression, as well as hydropower and navigation. The dams made the town of Lewiston, Idaho, the most inland seaport on the West Coast, and many farmers in the region rely on barges to ship their crops.
But the dams are also main culprit behind the salmon's decline, and fisheries scientists have concluded that breaching the dams in eastern Washington on the Snake River, the largest tributary of the Columbia, would be the best hope for recovering them, providing the fish with access to hundreds of miles of pristine habitat and spawning grounds in Idaho.
The tribes, which reserved the right to fish in their usual and accustomed grounds when they ceded vast amounts of land in their 19th century treaties with the U.S., warned as far back as the late 1930s that the salmon runs could disappear, with the fish no longer able to access spawning grounds upstream.
'This agreement was designed to foster collaborative and informed resource management and energy development in the Pacific Northwest, including significant tribal energy initiatives,' Yakama Tribal Council Chairman Gerald Lewis said in a written statement. 'The Administration's decision to terminate these commitments echoes the federal government's historic pattern of broken promises to tribes, and is contrary to President Trump's stated commitment to domestic energy development.'
Republicans in region opposed agreement
Northwestern Republicans in Congress had largely opposed the agreement, warning that it would hurt the region's economy, though in 2021
Republican Rep. Mike Simpson
of Idaho proposed removing the earthen berms on either side of the four Lower Snake River dams to let the river flow freely, and to spend $33 billion to replace the benefits of the dams.
'Today's action by President Trump reverses the efforts by the Biden administration and extreme environmental activists to remove the dams, which would have threatened the reliability of our power grid, raised energy prices, and decimated our ability to export grain to foreign markets,' Rep. Dan Newhouse, a Republican from Washington, said in a news release.
Tribes, environmentalists vow to fight for salmon
The tribes and the environmental law firm Earthjustice, which represents conservation, clean energy and fishing groups in litigation against the federal government, said they would continue working to rebuild salmon stocks.
'Unfortunately, this short-sighted decision to renege on this important agreement is just the latest in a series of anti-government and anti-science actions coming from the Trump administration,' Earthjustice Senior Attorney Amanda Goodin said. 'This administration may be giving up on our salmon, but we will keep fighting to prevent extinction and realize win-win solutions for the region.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
16 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Sen. Padilla's removal from Noem event indicative of Trump's cynical policies
The slam down, handcuffing and forceful removal of Sen. Alex Padilla from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's press conference on Thursday flows from the violence and unrest caused by President Donald Trump's policies to go after the undocumented immigrants where they work, shop and go to school. Immigrants are not criminals but hard-working people (often in jobs others would not consider) who pay taxes and contribute significantly to our economy. They have been allowed to stay in the United States, often for generations, because they are needed Both political parties have failed to pass legislation that would deal with immigration in an efficient and humane way. The most recent attempt, before the presidential election, would have passed but for the opposition of candidate Trump, who cynically sought to exploit the issue. I fear he is now exploiting the unrest he is causing to use it as a means to declare martial law and gain absolute power. Tom Miller, Oakland Deport the worst I am somewhat appalled by the media describing the disruptions in Los Angeles as mostly peaceful demonstrations protected by free speech, accompanied by pictures of burning cars, looting and attacks on police. If these people want to peacefully join our society, why are some of them waving Mexican and, in a few cases, BLM flags? If they intend to intimidate me, they should return to their own country, self-identified by the flag they are waving. Most of our forebears came here legally and peacefully, including, in my case, some from Mexico. I would be happy with a system that screens potential citizens, and excludes those who want to commit crimes or intimidate those around them. I approve of President Donald Trump's stated goal of deporting the worst first. We need to get rid of those who commit crimes. I would be happy to see new citizens, but not the thugs who intimidate us through their demonstrations. Peter Behr, San Anselmo Newsom is right Regarding 'Trump vs. Newsom an ugly skirmish that benefits both politicians' (Politics, June 10): The story suggests that President Donald Trump's search for dictatorial powers through intimidation, fear and escalating violence, and Gov Gavin Newsom calling this out is simply a tit-for-tat play for the attention of an uninformed public. It is becoming more obvious that Trump is trying to tear down the guardrails of civil society, trash the Constitution and eliminate all opposition. If Gov. Newsom did not express his strong, powerful and articulate opposition to this despicable behavior, he would not be doing his job. The Chronicle must not be afraid to illuminate the fact that Trump is a mortal danger to our democratic way of life. Kanda Alahan, Concord


Washington Post
25 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Minnesota killings spread fear in country riven by violence against politicians
Daniel Hernandez, whose life has been shaped by violence directed at politicians, woke up Saturday morning to missed calls and messages from loved ones who had seen the news that two state legislators had been shot in Minnesota and immediately worried about his safety. Hernandez, a former Democratic state lawmaker who is now running in a special election to represent Arizona's 7th Congressional District, began his political career as an intern for former Rep. Gabby Giffords and was credited with helping to save her from a mass shooter in 2011. Last week, a bullet struck the car window of one of his campaign staffers outside his family home, which doubles as his campaign headquarters. His mother and staffers were inside, he said.

Politico
31 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump has a plan to remake the housing-finance system. It's baffling to many lawmakers and experts.
GOP lawmakers and the mortgage industry are raising questions about the Trump administration's plans to maintain government control over much of the nation's housing finance system, defying expectations that it would back off. President Donald Trump surprised the industry late last month by pledging to take public Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled companies that stand behind half the $16 trillion residential mortgage market — while preserving an implicit federal guarantee for their solvency. His top housing regulator, Bill Pulte, who oversees the companies, added to the confusion by saying the administration is exploring ways to sell shares while keeping the companies under government authority. The insistence on preserving significant sway over the two mortgage giants, which were seized by the Bush administration during the financial crisis and placed in conservatorship, is setting up a potential rift with Republicans — and possibly even some administration aides who have long worked to reduce the government's footprint in the housing market. 'I want to get them out of conservatorship,' said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), chair of the Senate Banking subcommittee with oversight of Fannie and Freddie. 'But I want to be very careful about how we do it, because we need the secondary market, and we need it to work,' he added, referring to the market where mortgage loans are purchased and sold to investors. Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said 'we need to continue to investigate recapitalization and releasing' the companies from government control. The question of what to do with Fannie and Freddie has bedeviled policymakers for decades, with Republicans wanting the government to take its hands off housing finance and Democrats fearing that privatizing the firms would destabilize the market and push up mortgage rates. At stake is a potential windfall of hundreds of billions of dollars for an administration that is staring at massive fiscal deficits. The government holds a roughly $340 billion liquidation preference for the two companies, by one estimate — meaning the money would go to the Treasury Department before anyone else in the event of a sale. Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, will meet with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins on June 17 to discuss the future of Fannie and Freddie, underscoring the importance of the issue. Fannie and Freddie don't make loans themselves, but rather purchase them from mortgage companies and bundle them into securities to sell on the secondary market, freeing up the lenders to make more loans. That, plus the government guarantee, helps keep mortgage rates down, supporters say. Trump was widely expected to support privatization, after his first administration worked to prepare the companies for their eventual release. But his latest comments look more like what former President Joe Biden would do, according to Jim Parrott, a nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute and a former economic adviser in the Obama White House. 'In the Biden administration, you could imagine a version of this,' Parrott said. 'The fact that we're hearing about it in this administration, I think, is catching folks by surprise.' The FHFA responded in an email that it is 'studying how, if the President elects to take Fannie and Freddie public, it can be done in the safest and soundest manner which includes keeping them in conservatorship.' It added: 'In any scenario, we will ensure the [mortgage-backed securities] market is safe and sound and that there is no upward pressure on rates.' White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said the administration 'is committed to strengthening the Federal Housing Finance Agency to advance the President's mission of restoring the dream of homeownership for all Americans.' Keeping Fannie and Freddie in conservatorship, according to one shareholder, amounts to attaching 'training wheels' as the government figures out how to monetize its stake. 'I think Pulte has probably confused people more than anything with his message,' said Tim Pagliara, a shareholder and author of the book 'Another Big Lie: How the Government Stole Billions from the American Dream of Home Ownership and Got Caught!' 'So the idea, for example, of allowing these entities to operate in conservatorship is a strategy that they probably talked about with the investment bankers on their primary concern, which is mortgage rates going up,' he added. 'It's like putting training wheels on a bike.' The administration's pronouncements have perplexed housing finance analysts who are unsure of what a scheme to take the companies public while keeping them in conservatorship would look like — or whether there would be sufficient investor appetite to make it worthwhile. JPMorgan strategists wrote in a note that they were 'flummoxed' by the comments. 'It's just hard to imagine why anybody would think there would be strong investor interest in that kind of model, unless the government were to convey they were going to run the [government-sponsored enterprises] in a way that's investor-friendly, and I think we're a long way off from that,' Parrott said. David Dworkin, president and CEO of the National Housing Conference, a stakeholders' group, agreed. 'The most important element of a successful stock sale is a board that is truly independent and has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders,' he said. 'Under conservatorship, that is actually not even allowed. So, without an independent board with a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, there is no value to the stock.' Still, he said, 'there are far too many comments coming from major players, including the president of the United States, to avoid the conclusion that major action on conservatorship could be in the very near future.' Another housing finance analyst, granted anonymity to frankly discuss the nascent plans, also expressed skepticism about the idea that investors would bite on purchasing shares in conservatorship, with the federal government still owning the vast majority of the asset. 'The direction of that control can change at the next election,' the analyst said. 'Each administration has already demonstrated they want to use Fannie and Freddie in different ways, so what are you investing in?' For the most part, Republican lawmakers are keeping their powder dry as they wait for additional details about the administration's plans. '[Senate Banking Committee] Chairman [Tim] Scott looks forward to hearing more' from Trump and Pulte on their plans for Fannie and Freddie, spokesperson Ben Watson said. Asked if conservatorship should end, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Banking subcommittee with oversight of Fannie and Freddie, said, 'I don't know.' 'We're going to wait until the first quarter of 2026 to have that conversation,' said Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.), chair of the Financial Services housing subcommittee. 'Releasing them from conservatorship, that's one thing, but most of the folks I talked to still want the federal government on the hook.' The first Trump administration worked to build capital at the companies to prepare them for the end of conservatorship, an effort led by then-Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and former Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mark Calabria. Calabria has returned for Trump 2.0, now in a position with the White House Office of Management and Budget. Two key Treasury officials — Jonathan McKernan and Luke Pettit — also hail from the school of thought that Fannie and Freddie should be released from conservatorship. 'The Treasury Department has not really engaged on this yet — so it does not appear to me that the administration is very far into the analysis of options phase,' Parrott said. 'Until the Treasury Department really engages in any of this meaningfully, it's hard to know where all this lands.'