SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"The sprawling proposal," warned the Sierra Club, "includes dozens of provisions that would benefit the oil and gas industry and other corporations, at the expense of American families."
Green groups on Friday decried U.S. House Republicans' proposed text for the upcoming reconciliation bill, which the Natural Resources Defense Council said "contains an unprecedented slate of direct attacks on the environment and public lands and waters."
Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee submitted their proposed section of the massive GOP energy, tax, and national security bill, which is scheduled for a markup on Tuesday.
"The sprawling proposal, released in the dead of night, includes dozens of provisions that would benefit the oil and gas industry and other corporations, at the expense of American families," said the Sierra Club.
"The only way it could be friendlier to Big Oil CEOs would be if they wrote it themselves."
The draft's proposals include fast-tracked and expanded fossil fuel extraction on public lands, mandated oil and gas drilling leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ending protections for Minnesota's pristine Boundary Waters watershed, reinstating canceled leases for the proposed Twin Metals mine in Minnesota, rolling back fossil fuel royalties, and more.
"This proposal is a corporate polluter's wish list," warned Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program. "The only way it could be friendlier to Big Oil CEOs would be if they wrote it themselves."
"Let's be clear, this proposal is a means to an end," Manuel added. "The end is tax cuts for billionaires, and the means are selling off the public lands that belong to the American people. These provisions enable drilling and mining as quickly, lucratively, and free from public scrutiny as possible, even allowing the fossil fuel industry to buy their way out of judicial oversight. It's a giveaway to industry, and Americans should not stand for it."
Defenders of Wildlife warned that "this egregious legislation would undermine critical wildlife protections and destroy or degrade large swaths of wildlife habitats through destructive mandates for increased logging and massive oil and gas lease sales on American public land, including portions of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."
Robert Dewey, the group's vice president of government relations, said that "this bill would be devastating for American wildlife and the habitats they depend on."
"It puts a bullseye on already imperiled polar bears, whales, and hundreds of other species that depend on the integrity of federal lands and waters for their survival," Dewey added. "Congress shouldn't be handing over these vital and cherished wildlife habitats on public lands to oil and other extractive companies for bigger profits."
"This measure would give the oil industry free rein to pillage our public lands and oceans."
Kyle Jones, NRDC's federal affairs director, also issued a dire warning:
This measure would give the oil industry free rein to pillage our public lands and oceans. Instead of helping the American people and our shared public resources, it would allow the oil, coal, and timber industries to pick and choose the areas they want to exploit. And it exposes irreplaceable Alaskan wilderness to destructive oil drilling, industrial roadways and mining.
Worst of all, it allows fossil fuel companies and other big polluters to buy their way out of meaningful review or public input into their projects. So, that would mean one set of rules for the fossil fuel and logging barons, and another for the rest of us.
"The best thing that can be said about this measure is that it may be too radical for even this Congress," Jones added. "For the good of Americans and our shared resources, it should be quickly cast aside and forgotten."
The GOP draft follows the Trump administration's publication last month of a proposal that the Center for Biological Diversity warned "would rescind nearly all habitat protections for endangered species nationwide" by changing the regulatory definition of a single word—"harm"—in the Endangered Species Act, the nation's cornerstone wildlife conservation law.
It also comes as the administration, spearheaded by the Department of Government Efficiency—which has been led by billionaire Elon Musk—eviscerates federal agencies including the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
As he did during his first term, President Donald Trump—who campaigned on a "drill, baby, drill" platform—is pursuing a massive rollback of climate and environmental regulations and has appointed Cabinet secretaries whose backgrounds and beliefs are often inimical to their agencies' purposes.
Rather than celebrating emerging and untested technology attempting to recreate animals that have long since been extinct, our focus must be on the real, present-day threats to existing species facing extinction.
Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum quickly embraced news earlier this month of the misleadingly named “de-extinction technology” introduced by bioscience engineering company Colossal Biosciences. The premature and misguided celebration by Secretary Burgum, among many others, glosses over real, present-day conservation concerns and threatens progress to recover real species teetering on the edge of extinction.
Genetic technology to recreate long extinct species that will live the rest of their lives in captivity, held as curiosities for exhibition and publicity stunts, cannot be viewed as the solution to human-caused extinction.
Rather than celebrating emerging and untested technology attempting to recreate animals that have long since been extinct, our focus must be on the real, present-day conservation concerns and threats to existing species facing extinction. Our research efforts, conservation dollars, and legal tools should be focused on restoring and preserving the species currently on the ground and in need of help.
Genetically altering an animal to mimic one long-extinct species costs millions of dollars that could have been invested to prevent the extinction of over 1,600 species currently identified as endangered.
Instead, politicians vilify the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and claim we can Frankenstein our way to the future where nothing is natural but instead born out of a petri dish and raised in a man-made ecosystem.
If Secretary Burgum and the administration truly believed in wildlife conservation, they would not be opening massive swaths of our public lands to logging, drilling, and mining, nor would they be eliminating regulations critical to safeguarding endangered and imperiled species.
The ESA, a bipartisan federal statute enacted in 1973, has saved 99% of species listed under the law from the brink of extinction, yet has been chronically underfunded for years, starved of the resources it needs to achieve full recovery for imperiled species.
Genetically altering an animal to mimic one long-extinct species costs millions of dollars that could have been invested to prevent the extinction of over 1,600 species currently identified as endangered. In just the past few years, Colossal Biosciences raised over $430 million, enough to fully implement the ESA.
Meanwhile, representatives in Congress, like Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), are directly targeting laws that prevent wildlife extinction, including the ESA.
Rep. Boebert’s recently introduced bill, misleadingly named the “Pet and Livestock Protection Act,” would eliminate ESA protections for wolves in the lower 48 states. This bill does not protect pets and livestock; instead, it harms wolves and ignores both science and the courts, which have repeatedly affirmed that wolves need federal protections.
Rep. Westerman’s bill, the ESA Amendments Act of 2025, would make it more difficult to list species under the ESA, fast-track the elimination of protections for endangered species before they are ready, and remove scientists from the decision-making process.
Make no mistake, these bills and efforts by the Trump administration to kneecap the ESA and other federal conservation laws will undo 50 years of wildlife conservation success and put America’s imperiled wildlife at greater risk of extinction.
One conservation campaigner accused the president of "trying to drive a knife through the heart of the Endangered Species Act."
The Trump administration on Wednesday published an anticipated proposal that one green group warned "would rescind nearly all habitat protections for endangered species nationwide" by changing the regulatory definition of a single word in the country's cornerstone wildlife conservation law.
Two federal agencies published a proposed overhaul of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that would rescind the definition of "harm" to plants and animals protected under the landmark 1973 legislation, which according to the U.S. Department of the Interior has saved 99% of listed species from extinction.
Under the proposal from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), habitat destruction—the leading driver of extinction—would not be considered "harm." Opponents say the Trump administration is planning the redefinition in order to enable more destructive resource extraction like logging, mining, and fossil fuel expansion that would imperil ESA-protected species.
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) warned that the proposal would open the door "for industries of all kinds to destroy the natural world and drive species to extinction in the process."
UPDATE: The Trump administration issued a proposed rule today that would rescind nearly all habitat protections for endangered species nationwide. You can't protect animals and plants from extinction without protecting the places they live. More info: biodiv.us/42EnuQH
[image or embed]
— Center for Biological Diversity (@biologicaldiversity.org) April 16, 2025 at 8:26 AM
Noah Greenwald, CBD's co-director of endangered species, said Wednesday that U.S. President Donald Trump "is trying to drive a knife through the heart of the Endangered Species Act."
"We refuse to let him wipe out America's imperiled wildlife, and I believe the courts won't allow this radical assault on conservation," he continued. "There's just no way to protect animals and plants from extinction without protecting the places they live, yet the Trump administration is opening the flood gates to immeasurable habitat destruction."
"This administration's greed and contempt for imperiled wildlife know no bounds, but most Americans know that we destroy the natural world at our own peril," Greenwald added. "Nobody voted to drive spotted owls, Florida panthers, or grizzly bears to extinction."
CBD says the definition of harm has been "pivotal to protecting and recovering endangered species," noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that it includes habitat destruction.
Andrew Bowman, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, said Wednesday, "Despite the fact that the Endangered Species Act is America's single greatest tool to prevent species extinction, has a 99% success rate, and is supported across party lines and the country by 95% of the electorate, the Trump administration is hell-bent on destroying it to further line the pockets of industry."
"The vast majority of imperiled wildlife listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA are there because of loss of habitat," Bowman added. "This latest salvo to redefine 'harm' to eliminate protection for wildlife from habitat destruction, if successful, will further imperil threatened and endangered species. We will fight this action and continue to protect the wildlife and wild places we hold dear as a nation."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, on Wednesday accused the Trump administration of "trying to rewrite basic biology."
"Like all of us, endangered species need a safe place to live," Caputo said. "This misguided new proposal threatens a half-century of progress in protecting and restoring endangered species. We are prepared to go to court to ensure that America doesn't abandon its endangered wildlife."
Trump has already attacked the ESA during his current term by issuing an executive order declaring a "national energy emergency" meant to promote his "drill, baby, drill" fossil fuel policy. The order states that the ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act will not be allowed stand in the way of fossil fuel development.
The proposed redefinition of "harm" in the ESA comes as the Trump administration, spearheaded by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, eviscerates federal agencies including the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA. As he did during his first term, Trump is pursuing a massive rollback of climate and environmental regulations and has appointed Cabinet secretaries whose backgrounds and beliefs are often inimical to their agencies' purposes.
These include Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, a staunch fossil fuel proponent; Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former CEO of a fracking company who has denied the existence of a climate emergency; and Environmental Protect Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, described by the Sunrise Movement as "a disaster for our planet and a win for Big Oil."
In response to the administration's proposal, Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous said that "in Donald Trump's world, future generations will know bald eagles, blue whales, grizzly bears, and other imperiled species only through photographs."
"A world with the ESA is a world where those species have a chance to thrive," he added. "We will do everything in our power to defend this law and save our wildlife for future generations."