January, 13 2021, 11:00pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Liz Trotter, Earthjustice, (305) 332-5395, etrotter@earthjustice.org
Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495, ngreenwald@biologicaldiversity.org
Daniela Arellano, NRDC, (310) 434-2304, darellano@nrdc.org
Virginia Cramer, Sierra Club, (804) 519-8449, virginia.cramer@sierraclub.org
Gwen Dobbs, Defenders of Wildlife, (202) 772-0269, gdobbs@defenders.org
Jordan Rutter, American Bird Conservancy, (202) 888-7472, jerutter@abcbirds.org
Lawsuits Challenge Trump Administration's Latest Assaults on Endangered Species Act
New Regulations Strip Vital Protection From Imperiled Species’ Essential Recovery Habitat
HONOLULU
Earthjustice filed two lawsuits today in the District of Hawai'i in response to the outgoing administration's most recent attacks on the Endangered Species Act, the law that serves as the last safety net for animals and plants facing extinction.
The Trump administration issued two new regulations in December that strip vital protections from federal lands and other areas that the best available science indicates are necessary for the conservation of threatened and endangered species.
The first case filed today challenges the Trump administration's cramped interpretation of "habitat," which reverses nearly half a century of protections for habitat that needs restoration to meet species' needs, as well as areas that species will need in the future as refuges to survive dramatic changes to the world's climate.
"The drafters of this rule were clearly more concerned with easing industry regulation than upholding the foundational purpose of the ESA -- to ensure the protection, conservation and recovery of imperiled species," said Earthjustice attorney Elena Bryant, lead attorney on the challenge to the habitat definition. "We are going to court to restore protections for the habitat that is essential to pull species back from the brink of extinction."
The second case argues that the new regulations strip vital protections from federal lands and other areas that the best available science indicates are necessary for the conservation of threatened and endangered species -- and prioritize profits for polluting industries over the conservation needs of wildlife facing extinction.
"Critical habitat is a bedrock protection afforded to imperiled species under the Act," said Earthjustice attorney Leina'ala L. Ley, lead attorney challenging the critical habitat exclusion rule. "By making it harder to designate critical habitat, this rule virtually guarantees that the loss of biodiversity and our natural heritage will only accelerate."
The proposed changes directly undermine the Act's purpose to prevent extinction and promote recovery. The lawsuits were filed in Hawai'i, where the new rules could be especially damaging due in part to limited habitat for native species found nowhere else on Earth.
"The new regulation makes it easier for federal land to be excluded from critical habitat, a result that would be particularly harmful to listed bird species that depend heavily on federal lands, such as the northern spotted owl," said Steve Holmer, vice president at American Bird Conservancy. "These listed bird populations are in decline and facing serious threats. We should be adding protections, not chipping away at the safety net of the ESA."
"By requiring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to listen to industry rather than science when it decides what habitat to protect, the Trump administration's new rule is an absolute disaster for endangered species and the places they live," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The Endangered Species Act was passed to stop extinction, not facilitate it, and we expect the court to strike down this industry giveaway."
"Threatened and endangered national park species require more than just park lands for their survival and recovery," said Bart Melton, wildlife program director for the National Parks Conservation Association. "These regulations make it harder to protect vital areas outside of parks for wildlife and prioritize short-term profit over America's conservation future. In the midst of the climate crisis we should be working to uphold the core tenants of the Endangered Species Act. Instead these regulations critically damage the intent of the Act. NPCA is hopeful these regulations will be reversed."
"Critical habitat is a central pillar of the ESA's protections for listed species, and an essential part of what has made the Act a huge success for the past 50 years," said Lucas Rhoads, attorney at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). "These rules tie the Services' hands and make it more difficult to protect the areas that listed species need if they are to survive and flourish. To stem the biodiversity crisis we now face, we need the Services to use all the tools available to them -- not sell out to industry special interests at the expense of these precious species."
"In the midst of the first-ever human caused extinction crisis, one of the worst things you could do is impose restrictions on protection of areas essential to imperiled species' recovery and prioritize corporate profits over preserving the Earth's biodiversity," said Bonnie Rice, Sierra Club endangered species campaign representative. "Yet that is exactly what the Trump administration has done. Their relentless decimation of vital protections of the Endangered Species Act will be fought at every turn."
"Lack of habitat is the main reason why so many species are imperiled," said Jason Rylander, Defenders of Wildlife senior counsel. "For wildlife to have a fighting chance, they need a place to live. If we hope to save the most vulnerable wildlife from extinction, we will need to prioritize habitat restoration in their recovery."
"Hawai'i is the endangered species capital of the world; our small island home has over 30% of the nation's listed plant and animal species," said Moana Bjur, executive director of Conservation Council for Hawai'i. "For us, protecting endangered species and ecosystems is necessary not only to ensure biodiversity and climate resiliency, but also to honor our history and cultural heritage as a place."
"Designation of critical habitat is a crucial piece of the recovery process for species who have received ESA listing status," said Lindsay Larris, wildlife program director at WildEarth Guardians. "This new rule shrinks the areas even eligible to be designated as critical habitat for numerous species, making an endangered or threatened species' struggle to truly recover and thrive all the more precarious in our ever-changing and developing world."
Earthjustice filed both lawsuits on behalf of Conservation Council for Hawai'i, Center for Biological Diversity, NRDC (Natural Resource Defense Council), Defenders of Wildlife, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians. American Bird Conservancy joined the critical habitat exclusion challenge and will also be represented by Earthjustice.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Billionaire Palantir Co-Founder Pushes Return of Public Hangings as Part of 'Masculine Leadership' Initiative
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," said one critic in response.
Dec 07, 2025
Venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, a co-founder of data platform company Palantir, is calling for the return of public hangings as part of a broader push to restore what he describes as "masculine leadership" to the US.
In a statement posted on X Friday, Lonsdale said that he supported changing the so-called "three strikes" anti-crime law to ensure that anyone who is convicted of three violent crimes gets publicly executed, rather than simply sent to prison for life.
"If I’m in charge later, we won’t just have a three strikes law," he wrote. "We will quickly try and hang men after three violent crimes. And yes, we will do it in public to deter others."
Lonsdale then added that "our society needs balance," and said that "it's time to bring back masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable."
Lonsdale's views on public hangings being necessary to restore "masculine leadership" drew swift criticism.
Gil Durán, a journalist who documents the increasingly authoritarian politics of Silicon Valley in his newsletter "The Nerd Reich," argued in a Saturday post that Lonsdale's call for public hangings showed that US tech elites are "entering a more dangerous and desperate phase of radicalization."
"For months, Peter Thiel guru Curtis Yarvin has been squawking about the need for more severe measures to cement Trump's authoritarian rule," Durán explained. "Peter Thiel is ranting about the Antichrist in a global tour. And now Lonsdale—a Thiel protégé—is fantasizing about a future in which he will have the power to unleash state violence at mass scale."
Taulby Edmondson, an adjunct professor of history, religion, and culture at Virginia Tech, wrote in a post on Bluesky that the rhetoric Lonsdale uses to justify the return of public hangings has even darker intonations than calls for state-backed violence.
"A point of nuance here: 'masculine leadership to protect our most vulnerable' is how lynch mobs are described, not state-sanctioned executions," he observed.
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll argued that Lonsdale's remarks were symbolic of a kind of performative masculinity that has infected US culture.
"Immaturity masquerading as strength is the defining personal characteristic of our age," he wrote.
Tech entrepreneur Anil Dash warned Lonsdale that his call for public hangings could have unintended consequences for members of the Silicon Valley elite.
"Well, Joe, Mark Zuckerberg has sole control over Facebook, which directly enabled the Rohingya genocide," he wrote. "So let’s have the conversation."
And Columbia Journalism School professor Bill Grueskin noted that Lonsdale has been a major backer of the University of Austin, an unaccredited liberal arts college that has been pitched as an alternative to left-wing university education with the goal of preparing "thoughtful and ethical innovators, builders, leaders, public servants and citizens through open inquiry and civil discourse."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth Defends Boat Bombings as New Details Further Undermine Administration's Justifications
The boat targeted in the infamous September 2 "double-tap" strike was not even headed for the US, Adm. Frank Bradley revealed to lawmakers.
Dec 07, 2025
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday defended the Trump administration's policy of bombing suspected drug-trafficking vessels even as new details further undermined the administration's stated justifications for the policy.
According to the Guardian, Hegseth told a gathering at the Ronald Reagan presidential library that the boat bombings, which so far have killed at least 87 people, are necessary to protect Americans from illegal drugs being shipped to the US.
"If you’re working for a designated terrorist organization and you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you," Hegseth said. "Let there be no doubt about it."
However, leaked details about a classified briefing delivered to lawmakers last week by Adm. Frank Bradley about a September 2 boat strike cast new doubts on Hegseth's justifications.
CNN reported on Friday that Bradley told lawmakers that the boat taken out by the September 2 attack was not even headed toward the US, but was going "to link up with another, larger vessel that was bound for Suriname," a small nation in the northeast of South America.
While Bradley acknowledged that the boat was not heading toward the US, he told lawmakers that the strike on it was justified because the drugs it was carrying could have theoretically wound up in the US at some point.
Additionally, NBC News reported on Saturday that Bradley told lawmakers that Hegseth had ordered all 11 men who were on the boat targeted by the September 2 strike to be killed because "they were on an internal list of narco-terrorists who US intelligence and military officials determined could be lethally targeted."
This is relevant because the US military launched a second strike during the September 2 operation to kill two men who had survived the initial strike on their vessel, which many legal experts consider to be either a war crime or an act of murder under domestic law.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, watched video of the September 2 double-tap attack last week, and he described the footage as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.”
“Any American who sees the video that I saw will see its military attacking shipwrecked sailors,” Himes explained. “Now, there’s a whole set of contextual items that the admiral explained. Yes, they were carrying drugs. They were not in position to continue their mission in any way... People will someday see this video and they will see that that video shows, if you don’t have the broader context, an attack on shipwrecked sailors.”
While there has been much discussion about the legality of the September 2 double-tap strike in recent days, some critics have warned that fixating on this particular aspect of the administration's policy risks taking the focus off the illegality of the boat-bombing campaign as a whole.
Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, said on Friday that the entire boat-bombing campaign has been "illegal under both domestic and international law."
"All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life," she said. "Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Leaked Memo Shows Pam Bondi Wants List of 'Domestic Terrorism' Groups Who Express 'Anti-American Sentiment'
"Millions of Americans like you and I could be the target," warned journalist Ken Klippenstein of the new memo.
Dec 07, 2025
A leaked memo written by US Attorney General Pam Bondi directs the Department of Justice to compile a list of potential "domestic terrorism" organizations that espouse "extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment."
The memo, which was obtained by journalist Ken Klippenstein, expands upon National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7), a directive signed by President Donald Trump in late September that demanded a "national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
The new Bondi memo instructs law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), which will then undertake an "exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7" that will incorporate "a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities."
The memo identifies the "domestic terrorism threat" as organizations that use "violence or the threat of violence" to advance political goals such as "opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality."
Commenting on the significance of the memo, Klippenstein criticized mainstream media organizations for largely ignoring the implications of NSPM-7, which was drafted and signed in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious," he wrote. "But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously—even if the media are not—and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7."
Klippenstein also warned that NSPM-7 appeared to be the start of a new "war on terrorism," but "only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


