SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
defenders of wildlife
Senate GOP Sends Trump Bill Handing Over Arctic Refuge to Big Oil
"Once again, oil and gas development is taking precedence over science-based solutions for conserving wildlife and mitigating climate change," said one campaigner.
Dec 04, 2025
Climate campaigners, conservationists, and Indigenous people vowed to keep defending the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge after US Senate Republicans on Thursday sent legislation that would restart fossil fuel leasing in ANWR's Coastal Plain to President Donald Trump's desk.
All Republicans present except Sen. Susan Collins of Maine supported House Joint Resolution 131. The 49-45 vote came after three Democrats—Reps. Jim Costa (Calif.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), and Vicente Gonzalez (Texas)—joined all GOP House members but Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) in advancing the bill last month.
If Big Oil-backed Trump signs the joint resolution of disapproval, as expected, it will nullify the Biden administration's December 2024 efforts to protect over 1 million acres of land in Alaska from planet-wrecking oil and gas exploration.
"Simply put, the Arctic refuge is the crown jewel of the American National Wildlife Refuge System," Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) said in a Wednesday floor speech against the measure, noting that the area is "home to hundreds of iconic wildlife species."
"The Arctic refuge is also deeply connected to the traditions and daily life of the people who have lived there for thousands of years," the senator continued, ripping "the Trump administration's relentless attacks on public lands."
Heinrich's speech was welcomed by groups including the Alaska Wilderness League, League of Conservation Voters, and Defenders of Wildlife, whose vice president of government relations, Robert Dewey, also blasted lawmakers' use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal the refuge's protections.
"Once again, oil and gas development is taking precedence over science-based solutions for conserving wildlife and mitigating climate change. In these instances, the use of the CRA accomplishes nothing meaningful and instead harms iconic species such as polar bears, caribou, wolves, and migratory birds," Dewey said after the vote. "In addition to threatening wildlife, severe regulatory disruption in Alaska is the inevitable result of targeted rollbacks in one of America's most ecologically critical regions."
Andy Moderow, senior director of policy at Alaska Wilderness League, said Thursday that "while we are deeply disappointed by the final vote, we're grateful to see bipartisan support from lawmakers who stood up for the Refuge and upheld a long-standing, cross-party legacy of protecting this truly incredible place."
"America's public lands—including the iconic Arctic refuge—shouldn't be on the shortlist for a public land selloff to the oil and gas industry," Moderow continued. "We'll continue fighting the management chaos brought by today's vote in favor of actions that respect the Arctic Refuge for what it actually is: a national wildlife refuge, and not an oilfield."
Kristen Moreland, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, a group formed decades ago by Alaska Natives in response to proposed oil drilling in the Coastal Plain, also spoke out after the Senate vote.
"The Gwich'in Nation views the decision by lawmakers to leverage the Congressional Review Act to advance oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a deliberate attempt to undercut the standards and laws that are designed to protect this sacred landscape," Moreland said.
"This action from DC ignores years of consultation and communication with our Gwich'in communities that rely on this landscape for not only our subsistence and survival, but also our culture and spiritual health and well-being," she added. "We stand united in our opposition to any oil and gas development in the Arctic refuge, and will continue to fight this effort from the Trump administration and decision-makers who ignore our voices."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Proposal to Weaken Endangered Species Act Will 'Accelerate the Extinction Crisis,' Green Groups Warn
The proposal "could seal the fate of animals that, without these protections, would disappear from the Earth," said the Sierra Club’s executive director.
Nov 19, 2025
Environmentalists are sounding the alarm about a slate of new proposals from the Trump administration to weaken the Endangered Species Act, which they say will put more imperiled species in danger to line the pockets of the wealthy.
On Wednesday, the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced that it would once again roll back several key provisions of the ESA. Many had been in place for decades before they were slashed during President Donald Trump's first term. They were then restored under former President Joe Biden.
"These revisions end years of legal confusion and regulatory overreach, delivering certainty to states, tribes, landowners, and businesses while ensuring conservation efforts remain grounded in sound science and common sense," said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, a billionaire ally of the fossil fuel industry.
But some of the nation's leading environmental groups say the proposals will allow the government to flout science and approve new projects that will destroy the habitats of vulnerable creatures and accelerate the already worsening extinction crisis.
“The ESA is one of the world’s most powerful laws for conservation and is responsible for keeping 99% of listed species from extinction,” said Jane Davenport, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife.
The group said the changes "could accelerate the extinction crisis we face today." According to a 2023 investigation by the Montana Free Press, the ESA has prevented 291 species from going extinct since it was passed in 1973. At that point, around 40% of all animals and 34% of plants were considered at risk of extinction according to NatureServe, a nonprofit that collects conservation data.
“The ESA is only as effective as the regulations that implement it," Davenport said. “Rolling back these regulations risks reversing the ESA’s historic success and threatens the well-being of plant and animal species that pollinate our crops, generate medicine, keep our waterways clean, and support local economies.”
One of the rules being rolled back requires species to receive "blanket" protections when they are added to the list of threatened species. Instead of those blanket protections—which protect these newly-added species from killing, trapping, and other forms of harm—the FWS will instead create individual designations for each species.
According to Jackson Chiappinelli, a spokesperson for Earthjustice, some of the species that would lose protection under this rule would be the Florida manatee, California spotted owl, greater sage grouse, and monarch butterfly, which it said could remain unprotected for years after being listed.
Another major change would let the government consider "economic impacts" when deciding which habitats are required to be protected. In 1982, Congress modified the ESA to clarify that the secretary of the interior must make decisions "solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available," an amendment specifically intended to prevent economic factors from overawing environmental concerns.
The Interior Department said "the revised framework provides transparency and predictability for landowners and project proponents while maintaining the service’s authority to ensure that exclusions will not result in species extinction."
But Chiappinelli contends that the change would "violate the letter of the law" and warns that "the federal government could decide against protecting an endangered species after considering lost revenue from prohibiting a golf course or hotel development to be built where the species lives."
"If finalized, the rules would bias listing decisions with unreliable economic analyses, obstruct the ability to list new protected species, and make it easier to remove those now on the federal endangered or threatened list," said Ian Brickey, a spokesperson for the Sierra Club.
The proposed rules would also reduce the requirements for other federal agencies to consult with wildlife agencies to determine whether their actions could harm critical habitats. It also eliminates the requirement for agencies to "offset" habitat damage when approving new projects, such as logging or drilling, that harm protected species.
“Without rigorous consultations,” Davenport said, “projects could push species like the northern spotted owl and Cook Inlet beluga whale closer to extinction.”
The new proposals follow several efforts by the Trump administration to weaken protections for endangered species. Earlier this year, it proposed weakening the half-century-old definition of what counts as "harm" to endangered species to exclude habitat destruction.
The Department of Agriculture, meanwhile, has proposed rescinding the 2001 "Roadless Rule," which has shielded nearly 45 million acres of protected national forest from logging, oil and gas drilling, and road construction.
Amid the government shutdown, the administration announced its intent to lay off more than 2,000 Interior Department employees, including 143 from the FWS, though a federal judge blocked those layoffs.
It also attempted to sneak a provision into July's One Big Beautiful Bill Act that would have mandated the sale of millions of acres of public lands, but it was stripped out in the Senate following fierce backlash.
"The Trump administration is stopping at nothing in its quest to put corporate polluters over people, wildlife and the environment," said Loren Blackford, the Sierra Club's executive director. "These regulations attempt to undermine the implementation of one of America’s bedrock environmental laws, and they could seal the fate of animals that, without these protections, would disappear from the Earth."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP Accused of 'Waging War on America's Wildlife' With Proposed Spending Cuts
"This budget proposal shows yet again the extremes to which anti-wildlife members of Congress will go to sacrifice endangered species," said one conservationist.
Jul 14, 2025
As Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives begin work on spending legislation for fiscal year 2026, conservationists and congressional Democrats are blasting a key appropriations bill released Monday.
" House Republicans are once again waging war on America's wildlife in yet another giveaway to their industry allies," said Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. "Extinction isn't inevitable, it's a political choice. The Appropriations Committee has one job to do, which is to fund the government, not decide whether our most vulnerable animals get to survive."
The bill that the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee is set to consider on Tuesday morning would not only slash funding for the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—by 23%—and the Fish and Wildlife Service, but also strip Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections from animals including gray wolves, the center noted.
"This budget proposal shows yet again the extremes to which anti-wildlife members of Congress will go to sacrifice endangered species," declared Robert Dewey, vice president of government relations at Defenders of Wildlife. "The bill is loaded with riders that attack the Endangered Species Act and would put some of America's most iconic species, including the grizzly bear and wolverine, at serious risk of extinction."
"The bill and all who support it are compromising the crucial habitats, outdoor recreation areas, and natural resources that Americans and wildlife rely on."
The legislation would block funding for listing the greater sage-grouse as well as money to protect the northern long-eared bat, the lesser prairie-chicken, and captive fish listed under the ESA. It would also block the Biden administration's rules for the landmark law.
"By blocking protections for public lands while also providing short-sighted lease sales for the benefit of oil and gas corporations, the bill and all who support it are compromising the crucial habitats, outdoor recreation areas, and natural resources that Americans and wildlife rely on," Dewey said.
Democrats on the committee put out a statement highlighting that, along with attacking wildlife, worsening the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, and jeopardizing public health by favoring polluters, the GOP legislation would hike utility bills, promote environmental discrimination against rural and poor communities, and cut national park funding.
"With the release of the FY26 Interior bill, it's clear House Republicans are once again pushing an agenda that accelerates the climate crisis, upends our national parks system, and leaves local communities to fend for themselves—all while undermining the power of the Appropriations Committee and of Congress," said Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), ranking member on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
"We are still living with the fallout of last year's failure to negotiate a full-year funding bill. Instead of correcting course, the bill released today delivers more of the same: It cuts water infrastructure funding, slashes EPA programs, and wipes out environmental justice and climate initiatives. It even blocks the EPA from completing its risk assessment on PFAS in sewage sludge," she continued, referring to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also called forever chemicals. "On top of the environmental attacks, Republicans are taking aim at the arts and cultural institutions that enrich communities and drive local economies."
Pingree asserted that "any arguments that these irresponsible cuts are somehow fiscally responsible ring hollow in the wake of Republicans adding $3.4 trillion to the national deficit thanks to their disastrous so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' I urge my Republican colleagues to come to the table and support the essential work of this subcommittee: Protecting public health, conserving our lands and waters, investing in resilience, and ensuring that every community—from rural Maine to urban centers—has access to a healthy environment and a vibrant cultural life."
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) pointed out that President Donald Trump "promised to address the cost-of-living crisis, but instead, he and House Republicans are making it worse."
"House Republicans' 2026 Interior funding bill raises utility bills and energy prices to benefit billionaires and big corporations," DeLauro said. "Republicans are threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink and taking steps that damage our public lands, promote dirty energy, and hinder our ability to confront the climate crisis."
"In addition to these dangerous cuts, Republicans' proposal would mean fewer trips to national parks and less access to museums and the arts," she warned. "House Republicans are more focused on lining the pockets of big oil companies than lowering prices for working-class, middle-class, rural, and vulnerable families; protecting our public health; and preserving the planet."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular