

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.
In a summer full of alarming environmental news, two nesting sites off the coast of Maine observed record numbers for razorbills and puffins.
In a cabin on Seal Island, 21 miles off the coast of Rockland, Maine, Coco Faber reached for last year’s island report. She opened the book to a chart showing how many active razorbill burrows have been confirmed over the years.
“Some people might find charts boring, but if you want to understand how the story is unfolding, you have to understand the trends over time,” Faber said. “I really love looking at long-term data sets like this and realizing that my crew is part of the story.”
There was a record-setting story to tell this summer about razorbills, chunky black-and-white birds that stand about 16 inches tall. Razorbills are cousins of Atlantic puffins and the closest living relative to the extinct great auk.
Outside of one heatwave in July, razorbills were able to find a bounty of sand lance and Atlantic herring and puffins were generally able to munch on plump haddock, sand lance, hake, herring, and an unusual amount of squid.
There is no official record of razorbills having historically nested on Seal Island. They were hunted to the extent that Arthur Herbert Norton, a leading expert of Maine’s natural history in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, saw no razorbills in the state from 1894 to 1923. A 1989 article in American Birds said the razorbill “has the distinction of being perhaps the rarest breeding seabird in the continental United States, with under 200 breeding pairs.”
The bird began breeding on Seal Island in 1999, possibly attracted over from other islands by the successful reintroduction of puffins by conservationists with Project Puffin, now called the Audubon Seabird Institute. But unlike the puffin population, which grew on Seal Island to a record 672 pairs in 2024, the reestablished razorbill population grew at a painfully slow place for several years, stuck at just one breeding pair for the first five years and taking nine years to cross the 10-pair mark.
Finally, after creeping up to 36 pairs by 2017, the razorbills took off. Between 2019 and 2025, the number of active breeding burrows nearly doubled from 60 to 113. This year, Faber and her crew of Juliana Ramirez, Leah Volak, Claudia Halbreiner, and Eden Reck identified a record 127 active nests.
“It’s magical to see razorbills fly in with fish,” Volak said. “They look all black and white, but when they open their mouth, the inside is bright and yellow. It’s something to see.”
A couple of weeks later, at the end of the seabird breeding season, Faber’s crew and all the crews on seabird research islands from Cape Cod up to Nova Scotia shared their findings at the Gulf of Maine Seabird Working Group conference at the Audubon Hog Island Camp in Bremen, Maine.
The crew of Eastern Egg Rock, led by Alison Ballard, identified a record 213 active puffin burrows. The crew of Petit Manan Island, managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and led by supervisor Courtney Naughton, saw a record 103 burrows. While no official census was taken on Seal Island, Faber’s crew identified nearly 100 new active puffin burrows.
For razorbills, besides the record on Seal Island, Eastern Egg Rock recorded its first-ever-known razorbill nesting, with the successful fledging of a chick. The crew of Matinicus Rock, led by Coco Faber’s twin sister Tracey Faber, identified a record 419 nests. Petit Manan counted a record eight razorbill burrows.
The growth in Maine’s razorbill and puffin populations comes as the Gulf of Maine, which has been warming faster than 99% of the ocean, has seen a temporary pause in its heating up over the last couple of years. Five years after a disastrous breeding season for alcids and terns because parents could not find fish for chicks amid record sea surface temperatures, most of the reports at this summer’s conference were delivered with smiles.
Outside of one heatwave in July, razorbills were able to find a bounty of sand lance and Atlantic herring and puffins were generally able to munch on plump haddock, sand lance, hake, herring, and an unusual amount of squid. On Eastern Egg Rock, puffins were observed for the second straight year catching river herring as well as ocean herring.The introduction of river herring in their diets could be because of dam removals and herring run restoration projects, said Michelle Staudinger, an associate professor at the University of Maine’s School of Marine Sciences.
Common terns and the federally endangered roseate tern did well this summer. The White and Seavey Islands had a record number of roseate nests, and its highest count of common tern nests in five years. Stratton Island had its third-highest count of common tern nests and a strong year for roseates. Also a haven for waterbirds, Stratton Island had a record number of more than 200 pairs of nesting glossy ibis and its first-ever nesting of yellow-crowned night herons, a species much more common in the southeastern part of the country.
Stratton also had what might be a game-changing success in protecting the least tern, which is listed as endangered in Maine. Least tern colonies have often been wiped out by black-crowned night herons. Over the years, researchers have used lights, lasers, bangers, and screamers, and banged pots to try to scare away herons. They even tried to use a mannequin. All to no avail.
“The herons eventually figure it out,” said Stratton supervisor Ben Becker.
This summer, researchers erected a slightly electrified fence around part of the colony. Island supervisor Ben Becker said there was no predation within the fence. Only two chicks hatched outside the fence, but 31 hatched inside it. “I’m hopeful this method will stick,” Becker said.
The one sour note to the summer was a poor breeding season for Arctic terns. For whatever reason, the parents could not find food for chicks, not even invertebrates, especially when the summer heated up. Many chicks starved to death.
Staudinger called it a “head scratcher” as in many years, Arctic terns, the world’s long-distance migratory champion, arrive in the Gulf of Maine in poor condition, perhaps from climate change affecting its food supplies between here and the Antarctic ice shelf. This year, it was the other way around. Out on Seal Island, the Arctic terns arrived “with good feathers and good body shape,” Faber said. “But once they got here, they couldn’t find much of anything.”
That was not the case for puffins and razorbills.
Claudia Halbreiner, who is a zookeeper at the Central Park Zoo in New York City, said it was a thrill to reach under burrows on Seal Island to measure and weigh healthy puffins in their natural environment. “You feel how sturdy this bird is,” Halbreiner said. “You instantly have so much more appreciation for how it makes it out there.”
Among those at the Gulf of Maine Seabird Working Group who were particularly gratified to hear about the good fortunes for alcids was Richard Podolsky. One of the earliest participants in Project Puffin, he wrote the 1989 report on the then-rarity of razorbills. He said their resurgence represents a “multigenerational success story,” demonstrating that decades of dogged restoration can create the conditions for natural expansion.
Podolsky said it is proof that people “really can change the future of a species.”
This article was first published by The Maine Moniter.
The new interpretation of the 1973 law "is not conservation," warned one critic. "It is a license to destroy habitat, disrupt migration, pollute ecosystems, and drive endangered species toward extinction."
Wildlife defenders continued to call out President Donald Trump on Thursday after The New York Times exposed his administration's latest attack on endangered species and the landmark law intended to protect them.
The Times reported late Wednesday that as the administration's rule rescinding the regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act took effect earlier this week, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) internally circulated a memo interpreting the ESA to mean that only the intentional killing or wounding of a protected species is illegal.
"This memorandum—and other recent Endangered Species Act regulatory rollbacks such as the rescission of the long-standing interpretation of 'harm'—make clear that the Trump administration has declared an all-out war on America's wildlife," said Andrew Bowman, president and CEO at Defenders of Wildlife.
"The administration's absurdly narrow statutory reinterpretation hamstrings the ESA's effectiveness and makes a mockery of our nation's half-century commitment to saving and recovering America’s imperiled wildlife," Bowman charged. "This reinterpretation flies in the face of the ESA's plain language and common sense, as well as Congress' intent more than 50 years ago in enacting the ESA to achieve the goal of protecting and fully recovering listed species."
Oceana vice president Beth Lowell highlighted that "the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act will remove the core safeguards that have prevented the extinction of 99% of species protected under the act."
"Federally permitted activities that incidentally injure and kill endangered species currently need to take into account their unintended impacts on wildlife, including nesting beaches for sea turtles or North Atlantic mother and calf pairs as they swim to their feeding grounds," Lowell noted. "These changes upend the Endangered Species Act's balance of economic activity and needed protections, pushing species to the brink of extinction."
The US Department of the Interior, which oversees FWS, told The Hill that the memo "accurately reflects the US Fish and Wildlife Service's guidance for implementing the Endangered Species Act following the final rule rescinding the regulatory definition of 'harm.'"
"Under the guidance, the ESA's prohibition on 'take' continues to prohibit conduct including harassing, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing or collecting protected wildlife," the department said.
Susan Holmes, executive director of the Endangered Species Coalition—which includes 475 member organizations and over half a million activists—argued that the new interpretation of the law "is not conservation. It is a license to destroy habitat, disrupt migration, pollute ecosystems, and drive endangered species toward extinction."
"The administration has already eliminated habitat protection for endangered species with its extreme ESA 'harm' rule. It is using the so-called 'God Squad' to exempt oil and gas drilling in the Gulf from the ESA, and is threatening to eliminate protections for wolves," she pointed out. "This coordinated effort aims to strip the ESA of its power."
"If the Trump administration has its way, piping plovers will lose the beaches where they nest," Holmes warned. "Salmon will be pushed closer to extinction by dams, pollution, water diversions, and destroyed habitat. Grizzly bears will lose the connected landscapes they need to survive as roads, energy development, logging, and other activities fragment their habitat. Rice's whale—the only whale to live only in American waters—will be lost forever."
The coalition leader added that "the Endangered Species Act is our most popular and effective wildlife law, with support from 84% of Americans. We must not accept the destruction of a law that has protected our natural heritage for generations. The ESA must be defended, strengthened, and fully enforced—not gutted by political appointees acting on behalf of powerful industries."
Humane World for Animals president and CEO Kitty Block and Sara Amundson, head of Humane World Action Fund, also cataloged the administration's various attacks on protected species—and drew attention to a clear pattern regarding "who stands to benefit from these continued assaults on one of America's most popular laws for animals."
"It's certainly not the average American," they wrote in a Thursday blog post. "Instead, the beneficiaries are the massive industries that profit from destroying vital habitat and the animals who depend on it for survival. Oil and gas companies and other developers that have to (horror of horrors!) apply for a permit when their activities [pose] a risk of killing animals with federal endangered species protections—such as North Atlantic right whales, gray wolves, and black-footed ferrets, to name just a few—could be handed a pass."
"If this reinterpretation takes effect, more endangered animals will surely die," the pair declared. "And we will all be worse off for it."
"What the administration is proposing to do is take all of the force out of what we have all understood the act to mean: Don't kill endangered species."
"Hmmmm.... I've done a lot of horrible things lately. What is another evil, cruel, nonsensical idea? Ya know, one that would have irreversible generational consequences?"
That's how University of Alberta professor Timothy Caulfield responded to The New York Times' Wednesday reporting that President Donald Trump's administration "is quietly moving to strip a core protection" of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), according to an internal memo obtained by the newspaper.
Signed by US Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik, the memo interprets the law to mean that only the intentional killing or wounding of a protected species is illegal. The Times explained that excluding accidental acts "would be a seismic shift," because "the killing of endangered animals almost always happens incidentally, in the course of economic activity."
The memo is dated September 14—the same day that another Trump administration attack on the ESA took effect. That legally contested earlier policy rescinds the regulatory definition of "harm" under the 1973 law so that extractive industries can degrade crucial habitats. When the move was announced in July, critics called it "a death knell for America’s wildlife."
The effort revealed by the Times goes even further. Andrew Mergen, a Harvard University law professor who previously supervised ESA litigation at the US Department of Justice, told the paper that "this is really an assault on the act like we've never seen before."
"What the administration is proposing to do is take all of the force out of what we have all understood the act to mean: Don't kill endangered species," he said. "What they seem to be saying in this document is, it doesn't matter if you killed an endangered species if you didn't mean to."
Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement that "this stabs at the very heart of the Endangered Species Act by giving federal approval to the killing of some of America's most beloved wildlife... The Trump administration is desperate to annihilate environmental protections, but this incredibly radical measure is both cruel and profoundly unlawful. Killing endangered wildlife is illegal, whether that's your purpose or not."
"If you chop down a tree full of endangered birds or race a huge ship through a pod of endangered whales, you should be held accountable for your destructive acts," Hartl added. "But this administration wants to give wildlife killers a 'Get out of jail free' card. Imposing new limitations on the entire definition of take is a flagrant and illegal attempt to rewrite the Endangered Species Act via unilateral fiat. This would drive imperiled species over the cliff to extinction."
Other opponents of the plan called it "pure evil," and blasted the "perpetual villainy" of Trump's second administration—which has continued an assault on the landmark law launched during the Republican's first presidential term. All of his previous attacks on the ESA have faced resistance from conservation organizations and many members of Congress.
The rule on harm has sparked not only legal challenges from advocacy groups and state attorneys general, but also legislative pushback. In late July, US Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, introduced the Safeguarding Endangered Species Act, to nullify the policy.
Then, last month, Democratic US Sens. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution that, if passed, would repeal the policy. As the rule took effect on Monday, a Schiff spokesperson told CNN that "the senators will look to force a vote in the coming weeks."
This article has been updated with comment for the Center for Biological Diversity.
“We deeply regret that Sampurna could not be saved," said officials after the animal was found struggling to breath from smoke inhalation near a palm oil plantation.
Conservationists worldwide are mourning Friday following news that a rescued orangutan on the Indonesian island of Borneo has died—a singular though heartbreaking symbol of humanity's rapacious destruction of fragile ecosystems, in this case the ravages of the palm oil industry on the rainforests where the critically endangered primates once thrived but now struggle "dangerously close to the point of extinction."
The death of the orangutan named Sampurna was confirmed Thursday by the West Kalimantan Natural Resources Conservation Agency (BKSDA) in Borneo, who said the adult male primate died over the weekend after being found, struggling to stand or take in oxygen, by villagers near Ketapang, West Kalimantan earlier in the day.
"It was very weak, then I gave it water," said Jais, the local farmer who first found Sampurna in a roadside ditch and only goes by one name.
According to the Sarawak Tribune:
Sampurna was first reported by villagers at about 7am after he was found lying inside a dry drainage ditch in a community-owned oil palm plantation.
When rescuers from BKSDA and the Foundation for International Animal Rescue Indonesia (YIARI) arrived, Sampurna was unable to stand, could only move with difficulty and was suffering from severe breathing problems.
Emergency treatment, including oxygen therapy and intravenous fluids, was administered before he was transported to YIARI’s rehabilitation centre at about 11.30am for further medical care.
However, his condition continued to deteriorate.
With wildfires raging in the area in and around the palm tree plantation—a source of frustration for those who have for decades tried to curb the palm oil industry's destruction of fragile rainforest habitat across Indonesia—BKSDA said "lung abnormalities" found during a post-mortem of Sampura were thought to be caused by prolonged exposure to wildfire smoke, impairing lung function and leading to "acute hypoxia," or oxygen deprivation.
“We deeply regret that Sampurna could not be saved,” said BKSDA's natural conservation chief Murlan Dameria Pane in a statement.

"Sampurna the orangutan has died," said Dr. Tom Montgomery, a marine biologist and conservationist, in a social media post. "He collapsed on a palm-oil plantation in West Kalimantan province, Indonesia—his lungs destroyed by the smoke of his burning forest."
As the German Press Agency reported:
Sampurna had been monitored by YIARI’s Orangutan Protection Unit on August 16 and was still moving actively at the time. About two weeks later, he was found collapsed in a plantation near areas affected by fires.
His death highlights the threat that forest fires pose to orangutans, which depend on increasingly fragmented forests across Borneo.
Fires can destroy food sources and habitats, forcing the critically endangered animals into plantations and other areas where they are exposed to smoke and potential conflict with people.
Karmele Llano Sanchez, CEO of YIARI, told Reuters that the "orangutan got hypoxia because of the very thick smoke in the area," and while it showed no outward signs of being burned by the fires it could not properly breath and was vomiting.
In a statement last month, the Borneo Orangutan Survival (BOS) Foundation warned that "for wild orangutan, one fire can mean losing everything." With climate change a constant threat to crucial habit, new warnings of a "supersized" El Nino event forming is only elevating concerns about the impact on threatened species in the coming years.
- YouTube youtu.be
"The forest they call home, the food they depend on, and their chance of survival," BOS said, is all under threat. "These forests are also home to countless other species and include some of the world’s most important tropical peatland ecosystems and carbon stores."
With the fire season on the island already raging in August, the group said danger of wildfires for orangutans and others species "is not a future threat."
"Government of the people, by the people, but for friends and donors of the president above everyone else."
Even while repeatedly serving the interests of destructive industries, President Donald Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have claimed they are committed to protecting US national parks—but the Republican administration is now working to give a private developer a piece of Yosemite, NOTUS reported on Friday.
Specifically, according to unnamed sources and government documents, federal staffers are working on a potential land exchange to give a quarter-mile strip of land in California's Yosemite National Park "to a company that, through a web of limited liability companies, is operated by real-estate developer and investment firm Kingsbarn Realty Capital."
The developers own 83 acres west of the park, and Kingsbarn CEO Jeff Pori—whose company did not respond to a request for comment—aims "to build a short road connecting the property to one of Yosemite's central thoroughfares," providing "the land exceptionally rare private access to a park that is otherwise almost entirely buffered by national forests," NOTUS detailed.
The sources told NOTUS that political leaders at the US Department of the Interior "want us to be responsive to the property owner and their lobbyists or people, and they want us to work with these folks," and that "the political pressure being brought to bear is very unusual."
The National Park Service, which is part of the department, said that "no final decisions have been made," but any proposals "would be subject to all applicable federal laws, regulations, and departmental policies, including required environmental review and public notification processes."
The revelation—which came during National Park Week—was met with outrage.
Ripping the possible "secretive, backroom deal," as "an attack on the American people that own this national park," Mark Rose, the National Parks Conservation Association's Sierra Nevada program manager, told NOTUS that "it would also be unlawful, and a court previously rejected a road development proposal."
We are opposed to private developers building driveways and special access into our parks. The ultra wealthy can wait in line and go through the gate just like everyone else. www.notus.org/agencies/tru...
[image or embed]
— AltYellostoneNatPar (@altyellonatpark.org) August 28, 2026 at 9:00 AM
Sierra Club executive director Loren Blackford said in a statement that "Yosemite is not Donald Trump's to give away. This secretive deal betrays the purpose of our national parks and the promise our government has kept since Abraham Lincoln to protect Yosemite for the public and for generations to come."
"For more than 150 years, each generation has carried forward the responsibility to protect this sacred landscape and pass it on intact," Blackford continued. "The Trump administration is betraying that legacy by trying to hand parts of Yosemite to a private developer. We will use every tool at our disposal to stop this corrupt giveaway."
While the looming land swap could move forward without any sign-off from Congress, House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) was among those who spoke out on social media Friday.
"Our parks belong to all of us," the congressman emphasized. "These places should be protected for every generation, not sold off to Trump's ultrawealthy friends to profit off of. I will fight this, both for Yosemite and for every treasured park that would be up for grabs if this domino falls."
Columnist and self-described "recovering attorney" Wajahat Ali declared, "America is for sale," and American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said, "Government of the people, by the people, but for friends and donors of the president above everyone else."
While other critics condemned the reported efforts as "disgusting," "sickening," and "shocking," journalist Chris D'Angelo commented, "I would say this is shocking, but things have been headed in this direction since Trump reentered office."
After Trump won a second term in 2024—having secured campaign funds from Big Oil, and run on a promise to "drill, baby, drill"— one of his early actions post-inauguration was declaring a "national energy emergency" intended to boost the climate-wrecking fossil fuel industry.
Since then, while cashing in on his second presidency—including via stock transactions made this year as fuel prices soared due to his illegal war with Iran—Trump has continued to push policies that help polluters and other rich allies. For example, last week the administration delivered a "one-two punch" to national forests, taking aim at a pair of rules intended to protect such lands.
The Center for Biological Diversity warned this week that the Trump administration's proposed repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule would "open pristine public lands to road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development," and, according to the group's analysis, put 400 species on an "extinction fast track."
"More roads mean more sediment in streams, more fragmentation of wildlife habitat, more human access to places wildlife depend on for refuge, and more wildfires in forests already facing unprecedented climate change-fueled risk," the center stressed. "The roadless rule has held that line for a generation. Without it the losses to wildlife, water, and the wild places that define the American landscape will be irreversible."
This article has been updated with comment from the Sierra Club.
"The most imperiled wildlife in America's national forests all need large, connected landscapes where nature's systems still function."
A conservation group that ripped the Trump administration's recent move to repeal a rule protecting 45 million acres of national forest lands warned Wednesday that the proposed rollback would put 400 species on an "extinction fast track."
The Center for Biological Diversity released a study, titled "Deadly Incursions," that lays out how rescinding the landmark Roadless Area Conservation Rule would "open pristine public lands to road construction, commercial logging, and industrial development," damaging "natural areas, clean water, and wildlife protected under the Endangered Species Act."
"From the old-growth rainforests of Alaska's Tongass to the sky island ranges of the Southwest and the headwaters of the Appalachians, the most imperiled wildlife in America's national forests all need large, connected landscapes where nature's systems still function," the report reads. "The roadless rule has protected those landscapes since 2001."
The center found that if the rule ends, "7.4 million acres of designated critical habitat and nearly 1,800 miles of protected rivers and streams would be put at risk. This would pose a catastrophic threat to 88 federally protected animals and plants across the country with designated critical habitat in or affected by roadless areas, including grizzly bears, Canada lynxes, and native fish. Over 300 more species protected under the Endangered Species Act are found in roadless areas, but do not have designated protections for the places they live."
The document explains that road construction and logging don't just impact creatures on land. They also "cause significant soil erosion, sending sediment into waterways—raising water temperatures, smothering spawning beds, and degrading water quality downstream. This threatens imperiled aquatic life such as Chinook salmon, bull trout, candy darters, freshwater mussels, and frogs whose critical habitat may be outside roadless areas."
In addition to devastating already imperiled wildlife, from "Mexican spotted owls and Gila trout in the Southwest," to "rare butterflies and wildflowers nationwide," killing the roadless rule would have various other negative impacts, the analysis details. "Many roadless areas contain mature and old-growth forests that absorb and store vast amounts of carbon," and logging would release it, worsening the global climate emergency.

The report also highlights that "national forests are the largest source of municipal drinking water in the United States, serving more than 60 million people in 33 states," and logging and road construction would increase pollution risks. Wildfire risk would also rise, the study stresses, citing research that found fires were four times as likely in areas with roads than in roadless forest.
The publication further points out that "the Forest Service manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads—roughly eight times the length of the nation’s Interstate Highway System—and faces a multibillion-dollar maintenance backlog. Expanding the road network into previously undeveloped areas would increase long-term infrastructure and maintenance costs paid by taxpayers."
Randi Spivak, the center's public lands policy director, said Wednesday that "our national forests are home to some of America's most iconic animals, from grizzlies to hellbenders. These forests provide clean drinking water to countless communities. Bulldozing more roads through them will mean dirtier water, fragmented wildlife habitat, and greater wildfire risk."
"For a generation, the roadless rule has kept our wildest places wild," Spivak said. If President Donald Trump "succeeds in scrapping it, he'll do irreversible damage to our wildlife, water, and the wild places that define the American landscape."
After Trump's agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, announced early last week that the Forest Service had filed a proposal to fully rescind the roadless rule, the administration on Friday took aim at another policy meant to protect public lands: the Travel Management Rule.
"This is yet another egregious attack in the systematic dismantling of public lands management of our national forests," declared Dan Hartinger, senior director for agency policy at the Wilderness Society. "Paired with the proposed repeal of the roadless rule, this destructive agenda sells out future generations' enjoyment of our forests in order to hand them over for corporate profits."
Thomas Delehanty, senior attorney with Earthjustice's Rocky Mountain Office, also blasted the administration for targeting the roadless rule and "attempting to open up our national forests to more off-road vehicle use that will degrade the landscape and disturb wildlife and other land users."
"Some places in our national forests are meant for quiet, undisturbed recreation and protecting sensitive wildlife, including endangered species," said Delehanty. "This rule would open all roads and trails to ORVs by default, meaning areas set aside for hiking, hunting, or horseback riding could soon be fair game to four-wheelers and dirt bikes."
One critic said the administration clearly plans to weaken restrictions requiring "the Forest Service to carefully manage our natural resources and listen to the public, then open the gates to industry and extraction."
Still under fire for attacking the Roadless Area Conservation Rule this week, President Donald Trump's administration provoked a fresh wave of criticism on Friday by targeting another policy meant to protect public lands.
The US Forest Service announced Friday that it was moving forward with a proposed revision to the Travel Management Rule that "simplifies the regulatory requirements to enhance quicker local decision-making and increase access, including for motorized vehicles, e-bikes, and other mobility devices."
While leaders at the Forest Service and its parent agency, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), framed the pending changes as progress, Defenders of Wildlife called out the administration for trying to "gut" the rule managing off-road vehicles.
"The USDA's announcement to gut the Travel Management Rule and the roadless rule in the same week is a one-two punch that together deals a tremendous blow to wildlife," said Vera Smith, who directs the advocacy group's national forests and public lands program, in a statement.
"The Travel Management Rule states simply that motorized vehicles must stay on routes and areas designated locally for that use," Smith said. "The Forest Service issued the rule over 20 years ago to curb damage from unmanaged recreation, reduce user conflict, and protect public safety. Rescinding it now is irresponsible and reckless."
Hilary Eisen, federal policy director at the organization Wild Montana, was similarly critical, explaining that "the Travel Management Rule is why dirt bikers and snowmobilers can share national forest lands with hikers and backcountry skiers without conflict. It's why our national forests provide habitat to support thriving wildlife populations. It is built on local decision-making, with a designation process that ensures that no user group gets steamrolled and all our national forest values are protected."
"Just two days after doubling down on repealing the roadless rule, this announcement makes the administration's plan obvious: Gut the rules that require the Forest Service to carefully manage our natural resources and listen to the public, then open the gates to industry and extraction," Eisen warned.
"Forest Service leadership has already shown during the roadless rescission how much it values public input, science, and expert management: not at all," she added. "Agency leadership has lost the public's trust, and should expect the public to hold them accountable."
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins confirmed Tuesday that the administration was working to fully rescind the 2001 roadless rule that blocked road building and commercial logging on about 30% of all national forest land. She attempted to frame it as a move to prevent wildfires, but conservation groups contested her claims.
Josh Hicks, director of conservation campaigns at the Wilderness Society, declared that "opening our backcountry forests to more roads and development, and therefore more ignitions, is... not a wildfire solution, and never will be."
Criticism of that pending rollback had continued throughout the week, with the Wilderness Society's senior director of native lands partnerships, Starlyn Miller, calling out the administration's "failure to engage in meaningful government-to-government consultation with tribal nations," which she said "undermines tribal sovereignty and federal trust responsibilities."
"This failure disregards tribes' deep cultural, historical, and ongoing connections to these roadless lands and the clean water and wildlife they sustain," said Miller, a Little Shell Chippewa citizen who is of Menominee and Mohican descendant. "We stand with tribal nations and Indigenous communities in defending their freedom to shape and manage forests that are vital to their cultures, identities, and future generations."
National Congress of American Indians executive director Larry Wright Jr. also spoke out on Friday, saying that "tribal nations possess an inherent and legally recognized relationship with these lands, which remain the foundation of our cultural identities. Attempting to fast-track the removal of the roadless rule circumvents the mandatory government-to-government consultation process required by federal law."
Wright, who is from the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, added that "upholding the federal trust responsibility means honoring our treaty rights and ensuring that the protection of sacred sites is recognized as an uncompromisable legal obligation, not an afterthought."
Trump has cleared the way for 45 million acres of protected forest to be opened for logging and construction in what one conservation group called the "largest evisceration of public lands protection in American history."
The Trump administration is moving to reverse a decades-old rule that protected 45 million acres of forest lands from logging and construction, in what the Center for Biological Diversity called the "largest evisceration of public lands protection in American history."
On Tuesday, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced that the US Forest Service had filed a proposed rule to fully rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, enacted under former President Bill Clinton, which had prevented road building and commercial logging on about 30% of all national forest land.
Rollins described the "roadless rule" as a barrier to government wildfire prevention efforts. "Across the country, we’ve watched preventable conditions—overgrown stands, insect outbreaks, and disease—turn healthy landscapes into tinderboxes,” she said. "For too long, outdated restrictions have kept tens of millions of forested acres off-limits to the very treatments that improve forest health and reduce wildfire risk to our communities."
But conservation groups argue that the administration's reversal of the roadless rule has little to do with wildfire prevention and everything to do with opening up protected lands to logging interests and other extractive industries, which have long pushed for the rule to be weakened.
Increasing logging on federal lands has been a major goal of Trump's second term, and repealing the roadless rule is part of that effort. An executive order signed in March 2025 calling for the "immediate expansion" of timber production said that federal policies had made the country unable to "fully exploit our domestic timber supply."
In June2025, when the US Department of Agriculture first announced plans to rescind the roadless rule, it said that increasing timber production would be one of the benefits. The USDA said the rule hurt “jobs and economic development” and that repealing it aligned with Trump's goal to eliminate "barriers that hamper American business and innovation."
Earthjustice has argued that, contrary to what the administration says, repealing the roadless rule will actually lead to more wildfires, not fewer.
It points to findings from the Forest Service that 9 in 10 wildfires are caused by human activity, including throwing cigarettes out of windows, leaving campfires abandoned, and driving cars on grassy areas, causing them to ignite.
A peer-reviewed study published in January in the journal Fire Ecology by researchers with the Wilderness Society found that fires are about four times as likely to start near a road as in roadless forests.
Another study by the Forest Service in 2020, during the first Trump administration, examined two decades of data and found that roadless forests actually received more fuel-reduction treatments per square kilometer than areas elsewhere in the National Forest System.
"Speculation that eliminating road prohibitions would improve forest health is not supported by nearly 20 years of monitoring data," the study concluded.
Josh Hicks, director of conservation campaigns at the Wilderness Society, said Tuesday, "Opening our backcountry forests to more roads and development, and therefore more ignitions, is... not a wildfire solution, and never will be."
While doing little to curb the recent increases in wildfires exacerbated by climate change, conservationists argue that repealing the roadless rule will pose other harms to communities and wildlife across the country.
“Roadless forests supply clean drinking water for tens of millions of Americans, are home to irreplaceable wildlife, and store enormous amounts of carbon,” said Gabrielle Berthel, forest advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Repealing the Roadless Area Conservation Rule would allow for the fragmentation of some of the last intact forest ecosystems in the country, with irreversible consequences for the communities that rely on these forests and the people who seek out these special places for recreation."
The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) noted that these forests serve as habitats for numerous threatened species that risk being disrupted, including American wolverines, Canada lynx, grizzly bears, and northern spotted owls.
Randi Spivak, the public lands policy director at the CBD, emphasized that "these are some of the last truly wild forests left in the country... Once you start bulldozing roads for commercial logging and industrial development, there’s no getting them back."
More than 625,000 public comments have been submitted to the Forest Service since plans to rescind the roadless rule were announced last June. The USDA will accept public comments on the proposal until September 21, after which the administration is expected to move toward a final rule later this year.
"Tom Tiffany has put corporate profit ahead of local communities time and again."
The advocacy group Wisconsin Conservation Voters on Monday endorsed Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley in the state's closely watched gubernatorial contest, arguing he is the obvious choice over "extremist pro-corporate polluter" Tom Tiffany, who has recently attempted to posture as anti-data center despite his voting and fundraising record.
“The momentum across Wisconsin is clear—voters are ready for leaders who will hold corporate polluters accountable, stand up to corporate greed, regulate data centers, and protect our natural resources,” said Seth Hoffmeister, deputy director of Wisconsin Conservation Voters (WCV). “David Crowley has proven he understands the struggles of Wisconsin families. From cutting Milwaukee County’s carbon footprint in half to taking a firm stand against predatory data center growth, David is the leader we need to protect our environment and keep energy bills affordable.”
By contrast, according to WCV, Tiffany—who currently represents Wisconsin's 7th Congressional District in the US House—has shown "a consistent pattern of prioritizing corporate interests, out-of-state polluters, and special interests over regular Wisconsinites."
"Tiffany’s record is toxic," the group said. "He took $75,000 from mining interests in exchange for introducing an open-pit mining bill. He voted to defund the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program—a popular and effective bipartisan conservation program. He gutted the [Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources'] scientific authority, and he voted for budget legislation that raised healthcare and electricity costs. Tom Tiffany has put corporate profit ahead of local communities time and again."
The conservation group's endorsement of Crowley came on the same day that Tiffany released an ad attacking Crowley's position on data centers, part of a broader effort by the Tiffany campaign to take advantage of widespread voter backlash against the energy-devouring facilities.
But Tiffany's critics and the Crowley campaign say the Republican nominee is obscuring his own record and misrepresenting the views of his Democratic opponent on an issue that has captured the attention of communities in Wisconsin and across the US.
Tiffany—who, like Crowley, opposes a moratorium on new data center construction—has characterized the facilities as "exciting new technology," suggested they are necessary to compete with China, and voted as a member of Congress in favor of budget legislation that included a 10-year ban on state-level artificial intelligence regulations. (The US Senate later stripped the ban from the bill.)
Tiffany pledged on Monday that, if he wins in November, every proposed data center project in Wisconsin would have to meet "strict environmental standards," despite his putrid voting record on environmental issues.
Crowley, unlike Tiffany, devotes a section of his website to data center policy.
"As governor, I will let communities decide for themselves whether they want a data center at all—and if they say no, that decision would be honored," Crowley's website states.
If a local community opts to support new data center construction, Crowley said he would require the developer to eschew non-disclosure agreements that hide the details of the project, fully cover the "costs of infrastructure and grid upgrades," build with union labor, and contribute to a fund aimed at bringing down Wisconsinites' utility costs.
“Wisconsinites are looking for practical solutions to real challenges, like rising utility rates and unsafe drinking water,” Hoffmeister of WCV said Monday. “David Crowley will put our communities first and advocate for policies that make our state cleaner, safer, and more affordable.”
It cannot be cut into pieces without harming land and people.
Wanìshi means thank you in the Lenape language. This is the lyrical word we recently had the privilege of learning from a principal emissary from the Piscataway Indian Nation, and experiencing together. Wanìshi for the quiet moments between hard conversations and watching sunsets, where we shared in the spirit of collaboration, together with 18 other thinkers and doers who are deeply troubled by the trajectory of public agriculture policy, and its historically principal vehicle, the Farm Bill.
We embraced and shared in this collaborative mindset over the three days we spent with the America the Beautiful for All Coalition’s Legacy Lands workgroup in Maryland. The Farm Bill was one of the issues we discussed. A bill currently being treated by politicians as technical, as boring, as someone else's problem. When in our realities, it is none of those things. The Farm Bill decides who eats and who doesn't. It decides who is healthy and whose health is negotiable.
Between us, we have spent a combined five decades serving the communities this bill affects: rural families losing food, farmworkers losing protections, Black farmers losing land, tribal nations losing voice. So at that convening, and with this piece, we are expressing plainly a reality every farmer, rancher, and all of us who steward land intimately know. That land is a body and must be nourished. That we cannot cut it into fundable pieces and expect the pieces to bleed separately. The Farm Bill is a health bill. It cannot be cut into pieces without harming land and people. We do not view the content of the draft as a public health crisis because we have been trained to view it as agricultural policy. But it is, in fact, a public health crisis, and that crisis has a physical address: every community where conservation funding has been cut and every family living downstream of the farms and lands that lost it.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed on the Fourth of July last year, cut $187 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). More than 4.5 million people have lost their food assistance since then. In rural counties where the nearest grocery store is a 40-minute drive and the nearest doctor is farther, losing SNAP is not a policy change. It is a sentence. It means a child eating less, and then eating worse, and then showing up in an emergency room that is itself understaffed and underfunded. The Senate Farm Bill draft does not restore a single dollar.
That land is a body and must be nourished. That we cannot cut it into fundable pieces and expect the pieces to bleed separately. The Farm Bill is a health bill. It cannot be cut into pieces without harming land and people.
Both versions of the new bill cut funding for the conservation programs that keep farmland productive and water clean. The Senate draft alone slashes nearly $2 billion from EQIP, the program that helps small farmers put cover crops in, manage nutrients, and protect water. When those programs shrink, the runoff increases. Babies, adults, pets, and wildlife in the communities downstream all drink that water.
The agency responsible for delivering conservation to farmers is disappearing. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) lost nearly a quarter of its staff in one year. One hundred and forty-one counties went from having NRCS employees to having none. These were the people who helped farmers manage nutrients, reduce fertilizer runoff, and protect water. In their absence, nitrate from agricultural runoff enters rural drinking water unchecked. Research links nitrate contamination to colorectal cancer, thyroid disease, and birth defects in newborns, at levels below what the Environmental Protection Agency considers safe. The communities drinking that water are the same small rural towns that just lost their NRCS offices. A beginning farmer in southern Georgia or a small rancher in northern New Mexico picks up the phone and no one answers. Their neighbors downstream drink what runs off the fields no one is helping them manage.
For Latino communities across the rural West, acequias, the community irrigation systems that have sustained families for centuries, depend on the conservation programs this bill is cutting. A farmer in the San Luis Valley who has irrigated land the way her family has for six generations does not experience a conservation cut as a line item. She experiences it as a ditch that doesn't flow, a garden that doesn't grow, a family that buys what it used to harvest.
Black families once farmed 16 million acres in this country. Today they hold barely over 1%. Heirs' property, land passed down without clear title, is one of the mechanisms through which that loss continues: A single partition sale can erase a century of family ownership in an afternoon. The families who lose their land don't just lose wealth. They lose the foundation for food sovereignty, the one asset that could have fed a family, a neighborhood, a generation. A deed problem becomes a health problem, passed down the same way the land was supposed to be.
As we watch this Farm Bill, we carry with us the word our Piscataway colleague shared. Wanìshi. Thank you. We offer it now in the spirit of collaboration.
We will offer it again, in the spirit of gratitude, when Congress writes this bill for all of us.
We are waiting.