Everglades are essential for Florida's survival. 'Alligator Alcatraz' will harm them.
A watery wilderness lies between Naples and Miami, a serene Florida landscape of ancient cypress trees, rare orchids and elusive species like the Florida panther.
To set foot in Big Cypress National Preserve is to be enchanted by it, to see firsthand its irreplaceable value in a state where the coasts are crowded by strip malls, highways and housing developments. It's not only a beautiful place − its survival is essential to the water supply and the economy for millions of Floridians.
The Tallahassee and Washington politicians ramrodding a mass detention center into this part of the Everglades are ignoring these realities. They have lost touch with the citizens who cherish this place, who recognize its connection to Florida's public health and economy.
The backlash has been swift. A diverse coalition of tens of thousands of Floridians are calling on Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier to stop construction of the damaging detention center they've dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz.'
The coalition includes conservative hunters, tribal members, 'Gladesmen' who have lived in Big Cypress for generations, environmentalists and countless other Floridians from all walks of life.
Miccosukee tribal elder Betty Osceola has been at the forefront. 'It shows regardless of who we are, we all have something in common," she said. "We love the Everglades, and we're willing to stand together to fight for her."
DeSantis has dismissed any concerns about environmental impacts on the site, revealing how out of touch he is with his constituents. The governor took office in 2019 pledging to be a 'Teddy Roosevelt conservationist,' but his aggressive pursuit of this detention center in the Everglades is the latest in a series of about-faces.
In the summer of 2024, it was an attack on state parks from his administration. Followed by an attempt to give up the treasured Withlacoochee State Forest and the Guana River Wildlife Management Area. Then a proposed rock mine on 8,600 acres in the Everglades. Now this.
Florida builds 'Alligator Alcatraz.' The only dangerous creatures there are ICE. | Opinion
DeSantis launches yet another assault on the Everglades
We've been here before: In 1969, Marjory Stoneman Douglas founded Friends of the Everglades specifically to save this site from development of a massive airport.
She locked arms with the Miccosukee Tribe and many other allies to defeat that terrible proposal. They won, and in 1974 the Big Cypress National Preserve was established to protect the area in perpetuity for all Americans.
Although one runway was built, it has been lightly used for training flights − until two weeks ago, when Florida and the federal government advanced a scheme to build this detention center, with no public input and within a protected national preserve.
When Uthmeier appeared on cable news June 17 to announce what he dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz' in the heart of the Everglades, it looked like a stunt to distract from other environmental threats. As it turns out, it was a stunt and he was serious.
Less than a week later, a convoy of equipment trucks and construction vehicles began moving onto the site. On Tuesday, July 1, the detention center opened to the first detainees. It's a low-water mark for DeSantis' environmental record, but it's not a done deal.
We're committed to the long fight. This treasured place just 6 miles from Everglades National Park is irreplaceable. That's why Big Cypress was designated the country's first national preserve in 1974.
History is repeating itself as it comes under threat. Now, as then, the people of Florida are rising up in opposition.
Florida deserves to know environmental impacts of 'Alligator Alcatraz'
On June 27, Friends of the Everglades and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a federal lawsuit, with legal support from Earthjustice and attorneys Paul Schwiep and Scott Hiaasen, to halt activity at the site so a thorough environmental impact study can be done, as required by federal law.
The detention center site is more than 96% wetlands − a serious concern as dump trucks and paving equipment enter the site day after day. We're also concerned about the impact on endangered species as well as light pollution, sound pollution and other threats.
The law is clear: The federal government is required to make sure environmental impacts are assessed before damage occurs.
Opinion: Want to fix climate change? Stop talking about saving the planet.
If you're not an environmentalist, the fiscally conservative argument should sway you: Taxpayers have invested more than $10 billion in Everglades restoration, the most complicated and expensive ecosystem restoration project on the planet. The law requires consideration of alternative sites, which has not been done.
'Alligator Alcatraz' threatens to undermine that investment.
And for what? Fame for Florida's politically ambitious attorney general? Political points for Florida's governor?
This is government gone rogue, and the Everglades are paying the price. The state seized the site from Miami-Dade County on June 23, invoking dubious emergency powers without following federal law, then erecting a mass detention center in one of the most sacred, environmentally sensitive areas of the state.
It's been said that national parks were America's 'best idea.' This looks like one of America's worst.
Eve Samples is executive director of Friends of the Everglades. Jessica Namath is founder of the grassroots advocacy group Floridians for Public Lands.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
26 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump Speaks Out After Using Term Considered as Antisemitic
President Donald Trump has spoken out after sparking criticism for using a term widely considered to be antisemitic during a speech. Addressing a crowd in Iowa on Thursday, Trump used the term 'Shylock' when discussing his now-signed 'Big, Beautiful Bill.' When approached by a reporter on Friday about his use of the term that's 'widely viewed as an antisemitic' phrase, Trump was asked if he intended for the word 'to be used in that way.''No, I've never heard it that way. To me, 'Shylock' is somebody that's a moneylender at high rates. I've never heard it that way. You view it differently than me. I've never heard that,' he said, before opening up to other questions on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews. Trump had used the word when discussing taxes, telling an Iowa crowd: 'No death tax, no estate tax, no going to the banks and borrowing some from, in some cases, a fine banker and in some cases Shylocks and bad people.' Jewish advocacy groups came out to condemn the usage of the term, tracing its history back to the villain of William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, which sees the dubious character demand a pound of flesh from a Christian merchant unable to pay his debt. The play has long been regarded as antisemitic and problematic. Read More: How Trump Fits Into the Long, Fraught History of the Relationship Between Israel and American Jews 'The term 'Shylock' evokes a centuries-old antisemitic trope about Jews and greed that is extremely offensive and dangerous. President Trump's use of the term is very troubling and irresponsible,' said the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in a statement posted on social media. 'It underscores how lies and conspiracies about Jews remain deeply entrenched in our country.' Former President Joe Biden used the term 'Shylocks' in a speech in 2014 when he was Vice President, but said afterwards that it was a 'poor choice of words.' Trump's use of the term comes at a precarious time, as instances of antisemitism and hate crimes towards Jewish Americans have surged in recent years, especially since the start of the Israel-Hamas war. The ADL reported that antisemitic incidents skyrocketed 360% in the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7, 2023. Furthermore, according to the State of Antisemitism in America 2024 report, published in February 2025, 33% of American Jews said they have been the personal target of antisemitism, in-person or virtually, at least once over the past year. An attack in Boulder, Colorado, in June and the fatal shooting of two Israeli embassy employees in Washington, D.C., in May, are two recent incidents of anti-Jewish violence that have rocked communities in the U.S. Read More: The Rise of Antisemitism and Political Violence in the U.S. Meanwhile, the Jewish Council on Public Affairs spoke out on Friday against Trump's "deeply dangerous" use of the term 'Shylocks,' calling it 'among the most quintessential antisemitic slurs in his remarks,' and claiming that the moment 'follows years in which Trump has normalized antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories.' Jewish members of Congress have also come out to condemn the use of the word. Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, a Democrat, described the history of the term, calling it 'one of the most recognizable antisemitic slurs in the English language' that has 'fueled discrimination, hatred, and violence against Jews.' 'I condemn Donald Trump's dangerous use of this blatantly antisemitic slur and his long history of trafficking in antisemitic tropes," Nadler said. "I have often said that if Donald Trump was serious about fighting antisemitism, he could start with the antisemites in his own Administration... If Donald Trump were serious about fighting antisemitism, he could start with himself." This is far from the first incident that has prompted concern in regards to Trump's use of antisemitic tropes. Trump previously appeared to indulge an antisemitic trope of Jewish people controlling things behind the scenes. In 2015, at an event with Jewish donors, he told the crowd, 'I don't want your money. You want to control your own politician.' Prominent Jewish voices also raised concerns about Trump's rhetoric in 2019, when he told reporters: "In my opinion, you vote for a Democrat, you're being very disloyal to Jewish people, and you're being very disloyal to Israel… and only weak people would say anything other than that." His comment came shortly after he had said: "I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.' Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL responded to Trump's comments of 'disloyalty,' saying the President had "made it clear he thinks Jews have a dual loyalty to Israel. This antisemitic trope has been used to persecute Jews for centuries and it's unacceptable to promote it.' In 2021, Trump revisited that line of rhetoric, saying in an interview that 'people in this country that are Jewish no longer love Israel. I'll tell you the evangelical Christians love Israel more than the Jews in this country.'
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Reacts To Hamas' 'Positive' Response to Ceasefire Plan
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Donald Trump has welcomed the response of Hamas to the U.S. ceasefire and hostage release proposal for Gaza. After the militant group said Friday it was ready to enter talks to end the war with Israel, without confirming it had accepted terms, the U.S. president told reporters that the Hamas response was "good" and suggested a deal could be struck next week. Hamas captivity survivor Keith Siegel said in a media statement shared with Newsweek that Trump is "the only one" who can strike a comprehensive deal that can bring the remaining captives home. Newsweek has contacted the Israeli government for comment. File photo: Donald Trump gestures as he speaks on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025 in Washington, D.C. File photo: Donald Trump gestures as he speaks on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025 in Washington, It Matters Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet Trump in Washington, D.C., on Monday. The positive response from Hamas and the U.S. president's comments that a deal could happen next week have raised speculation that an end to the near-21-month war between Israel and Hamas could be imminent. What To Know Trump had said on Tuesday that Israel had agreed the conditions required for a 60-day ceasefire to end the war that followed Hamas' attacks on southern Israel on October 7, 2023; around 1,200 people were killed and over 250 taken hostage. Israel's bombardment on Gaza since then has killed over 57,000, according to The Associated Press, citing local health officials. Hamas said Friday it had responded in "a positive spirit" to a U.S.-brokered Gaza ceasefire proposal and was ready for talks. Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Friday that he welcomed the response by Hamas as "good" and hoped there would be a deal next week. Hamas had requested changes to the deal; these include ending a U.S.-backed aid system by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) in favor of the U.N. and its partners, as well as American guarantees that the war would not resume if talks failed, the BBC reported, citing a Palestinian official. The plan is also believed to include the staggered release of 10 living Israeli hostages and the bodies of 18 other hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. Some 50 hostages are held in Gaza, at least 20 of whom are believed to be alive. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum has demanded a deal to end the war and release the remaining hostages. Thousands are expected to join hostage families at rallies in Israel on Saturday to urge the government to reach a deal to free the captives. In a statement via the forum provided to Newsweek on Friday, Hamas captivity survivor Keith Siegel said he and his family were grateful for Trump for prioritizing the hostage crisis, but only a comprehensive deal can bring all of them home. "President Donald Trump, you are the only one who can do it," Siegel said. "End the war, bring them home, create a better future for the Middle East." What People Are Saying Hamas said in a statement it consulted the latest proposal by the mediators to halt the war in Gaza and that it was "fully prepared, with all seriousness, to immediately enter a new round of negotiations on the mechanism for implementing this framework." President Donald Trump said: "They (Hamas) said they gave me a positive response? Well, that's good. There could be a Gaza deal next week." Mayar Al Farr, a 13-year-old Palestinian girl, told Reuters: "There should have been a ceasefire long ago before I lost my brother." Hamas captivity survivor Keith Siegel said in a statement: "My family and I are eternally thankful to President Donald Trump for prioritizing the hostage crisis since day one of his presidency and bringing me and so many others home. Fifty hostages are still in Hamas captivity. Only a comprehensive deal can bring all of them home." What Happens Next Given Trump's comments that a deal could be reached next week, there will be anticipation over the next move Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who will meet Trump in Washington on Monday. The Israeli leader has repeatedly said Hamas must be disarmed, but it is thought that this is something that the militant group has so far refused to discuss. The Times of Israel newspaper reported that Netanyahu was working with Trump on a deal to end the war, despite the opposition of the right-wing flank of his government.
CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
Congress Won't Block State AI Regulations. Here's What That Means for Consumers
After months of debate, a plan in Congress to block states from regulating artificial intelligence was pulled from the big federal budget bill this week. The proposed 10-year moratorium would have prevented states from enforcing rules and laws on AI if the state accepted federal funding for broadband access. The issue exposed divides among technology experts and politicians, with some Senate Republicans joining Democrats in opposing the move. The Senate eventually voted 99-1 to remove the proposal from the bill, which also includes the extension of the 2017 federal tax cuts and cuts to services like Medicaid and SNAP. Congressional Republican leaders have said they want to have the measure on President Donald Trump's desk by July 4. Tech companies and many Congressional Republicans supported the moratorium, saying it would prevent a "patchwork" of rules and regulations across states and local governments that could hinder the development of AI -- especially in the context of competition with China. Critics, including consumer advocates, said states should have a free hand to protect people from potential issues with the fast-growing technology. "The Senate came together tonight to say that we can't just run over good state consumer protection laws," Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, said in a statement. "States can fight robocalls, deepfakes and provide safe autonomous vehicle laws. This also allows us to work together nationally to provide a new federal framework on artificial intelligence that accelerates US leadership in AI while still protecting consumers." Despite the moratorium being pulled from this bill, the debate over how the government can appropriately balance consumer protection and supporting technology innovation will likely continue. "There have been a lot of discussions at the state level, and I would think that it's important for us to approach this problem at multiple levels," said Anjana Susarla, a professor at Michigan State University who studies AI. "We could approach it at the national level. We can approach it at the state level, too. I think we need both." Several states have already started regulating AI The proposed moratorium would have barred states from enforcing any regulation, including those already on the books. The exceptions are rules and laws that make things easier for AI development and those that apply the same standards to non-AI models and systems that do similar things. These kinds of regulations are already starting to pop up. The biggest focus is not in the US, but in Europe, where the European Union has already implemented standards for AI. But states are starting to get in on the action. Colorado passed a set of consumer protections last year, set to go into effect in 2026. California adopted more than a dozen AI-related laws last year. Other states have laws and regulations that often deal with specific issues such as deepfakes or require AI developers to publish information about their training data. At the local level, some regulations also address potential employment discrimination if AI systems are used in hiring. "States are all over the map when it comes to what they want to regulate in AI," said Arsen Kourinian, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown. So far in 2025, state lawmakers have introduced at least 550 proposals around AI, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In the House committee hearing last month, Rep. Jay Obernolte, a Republican from California, signaled a desire to get ahead of more state-level regulation. "We have a limited amount of legislative runway to be able to get that problem solved before the states get too far ahead," he said. Read more: AI Essentials: 29 Ways to Make Gen AI Work for You, According to Our Experts While some states have laws on the books, not all of them have gone into effect or seen any enforcement. That limits the potential short-term impact of a moratorium, said Cobun Zweifel-Keegan, managing director in Washington for IAPP. "There isn't really any enforcement yet." A moratorium would likely deter state legislators and policymakers from developing and proposing new regulations, Zweifel-Keegan said. "The federal government would become the primary and potentially sole regulator around AI systems," he said. What a moratorium on state AI regulation would mean AI developers have asked for any guardrails placed on their work to be consistent and streamlined. "We need, as an industry and as a country, one clear federal standard, whatever it may be," Alexandr Wang, founder and CEO of the data company Scale AI, told lawmakers during an April hearing. "But we need one, we need clarity as to one federal standard and have preemption to prevent this outcome where you have 50 different standards." During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in May, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, that an EU-style regulatory system "would be disastrous" for the industry. Altman suggested instead that the industry develop its own standards. Asked by Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, if industry self-regulation is enough at the moment, Altman said he thought some guardrails would be good, but, "It's easy for it to go too far. As I have learned more about how the world works, I am more afraid that it could go too far and have really bad consequences." (Disclosure: Ziff Davis, parent company of CNET, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.) Not all AI companies are backing a moratorium, however. In a New York Times op-ed, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called it "far too blunt an instrument," saying the federal government should create transparency standards for AI companies instead. "Having this national transparency standard would help not only the public but also Congress understand how the technology is developing, so that lawmakers can decide whether further government action is needed." A proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI laws is now in the hands of the US Senate, where its Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has already held hearings on artificial intelligence. Nathan Howard/Bloomberg via Getty Images Concerns from companies, both the developers that create AI systems and the "deployers" who use them in interactions with consumers, often stem from fears that states will mandate significant work such as impact assessments or transparency notices before a product is released, Kourinian said. Consumer advocates have said more regulations are needed and hampering the ability of states could hurt the privacy and safety of users. A moratorium on specific state rules and laws could result in more consumer protection issues being dealt with in court or by state attorneys general, Kourinian said. Existing laws around unfair and deceptive practices that are not specific to AI would still apply. "Time will tell how judges will interpret those issues," he said. Susarla said the pervasiveness of AI across industries means states might be able to regulate issues such as privacy and transparency more broadly, without focusing on the technology. But a moratorium on AI regulation could lead to such policies being tied up in lawsuits. "It has to be some kind of balance between 'we don't want to stop innovation,' but on the other hand, we also need to recognize that there can be real consequences," she said. Much policy around the governance of AI systems does happen because of those so-called technology-agnostic rules and laws, Zweifel-Keegan said. "It's worth also remembering that there are a lot of existing laws and there is a potential to make new laws that don't trigger the moratorium but do apply to AI systems as long as they apply to other systems," he said. What's next for federal AI regulation? One of the key lawmakers pushing for the removal of the moratorium from the bill was Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican. Blackburn said she wanted to make sure states were able to protect children and creators, like the country musicians her state is famous for. "Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can't block states from standing in the gap to protect vulnerable Americans from harm -- including Tennessee creators and precious children," she said in a statement. Groups that opposed the preemption of state laws said they hope the next move for Congress is to take steps toward actual regulation of AI, which could make state laws unnecessary. If tech companies "are going to seek federal preemption, they should seek federal preemption along with a federal law that provides rules of the road," Jason Van Beek, chief government affairs officer at the Future of Life Institute, told me. Ben Winters, director of AI and data privacy at the Consumer Federation of America, said Congress could take up the idea of pre-empting state laws again in separate legislation. "Fundamentally, it's just a bad idea," he told me. "It doesn't really necessarily matter if it's done in the budget process."
