PORTLAND, Maine — Environmental organizations are raising alarms over President Donald Trump’s recent executive order, which they argue undermines the protections offered by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and favors fossil fuel interests. They believe this order serves as a mechanism to prioritize energy production over the conservation of threatened wildlife.
Trump made headlines earlier this week by declaring an energy emergency and promoting a strategy characterized by the slogan “drill, baby, drill.” A significant aspect of this order suggests that the ESA should not hinder energy development efforts, prompting fears from conservationists that this could lead to weakened safeguards for various endangered species.
Experts argue that the order could adversely affect a wide range of creatures, from small birds like the golden-cheeked warbler to large marine mammals such as the North Atlantic right whale. In response, some conservation groups are prepared to challenge the executive order in court.
The Endangered Species Act, now over half a century old, has been instrumental in the recovery of many American species, including the bald eagle. It mandates that federal agencies actively engage in the protection of endangered and threatened species.
Through the declaration of a national energy emergency, the order directly targets the ESA’s authority. It instructs federal agencies to prioritize energy production, potentially fast-tracking projects that would typically face delays due to environmental regulations.
Additionally, the order establishes a committee tasked with identifying obstacles to domestic energy initiatives emanating from the ESA or the Marine Mammal Protection Act, another important conservation law. The committee is expected to explore possible regulatory changes, including adjustments to species listings.
While the Trump administration has not commented specifically on the executive order, the declaration primarily prioritizes fossil fuels like crude oil and coal, conspicuously excluding renewable energy sources such as wind power. It justifies the emergency status by asserting that having a stable domestic energy supply is essential for national and economic security.
Although the Endangered Species Act is acclaimed by environmentalists, it has faced criticism from pro-development and free-market advocates for allegedly obstructing energy projects, infrastructure developments, and residential construction. Organizations like the Heartland Institute supported Trump’s declaration, viewing it as a critical step forward.
Some conservative critics of the ESA argue that it has been ineffective, citing lengthy processes such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s multi-year effort to evaluate whether to delist the golden-cheeked warbler, a bird native to Texas. Advocates for reduced regulatory burdens claim that the executive order could streamline permitting and reduce delays associated with the ESA.
Environmentalists, however, maintain that the ESA is essential for the survival of species facing extinction. They point to the North Atlantic right whale, with a population below 400, as a species that requires stringent protection from various threats, including ship strikes and fishing gear entanglements. The Rice’s whale, another critically endangered species in the Gulf of Mexico, is also at risk from oil extraction activities.
Highlighting the importance of the ESA, Andrew Bowman, the president of the conservation organization Defenders of Wildlife, emphasized that the bald eagle’s recovery is a testament to the law’s effectiveness. “The election of President Trump did not grant him the authority to compromise the American public’s right to a clean and healthy environment or negate the conservation achievements that have safeguarded several iconic species,” Bowman asserted, underlining that the bald eagle owes its survival to protections under the Endangered Species Act.
