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
u.s. fish and wildlife service
Lawsuit Aims to Halt Trump Giveaway of Wildlife Refuge to Appease Elon Musk's SpaceX
"We’re not letting Trump and his political cronies lock the American people out of Texas’ cherished public lands just to give Elon Musk another payday.”
Jun 10, 2026
Several environmental organizations are suing the US Fish and Wildlife Service to stop the agency from handing over hundreds of acres of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge to Elon Musk's company SpaceX.
The complaint—which was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Save RGV, the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, and South Texas Environmental Justice Network—alleges that the government is violating federal law that requires any transfers of wildlife refuge lands to private ownership to result in net conservation benefits.
Instead, the complaint says the proposed deal with SpaceX would lead to a loss of more 715 acres of wildlife refuge land in exchange for 683 acres of private land.
Bekah Hinojosa, co-founder of the South Texas Environmental Justice Network, expressed particular concerns about SpaceX building facilities on the land given that the company's rockets regularly cause environmental damage by exploding.
"Elon Musk has built his explosive SpaceX facility in the middle of a major wildlife corridor home to endangered and threatened species like ocelots and wetlands," said Hinojosa. "There was never supposed to be space rockets blowing up here."
Laiken Jordahl, national public lands advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, accused President Donald Trump's administration of handing over vital public lands to "the world’s richest man, who could trash them while playing with his exploding rockets."
"We’re not letting Trump and his political cronies lock the American people out of Texas’ cherished public lands," added Jordahl, "just to give Elon Musk another payday.”
Mary Angela Branch, board member at Save RGV, said that SpaceX's presence in the area has already been an "unmitigated disaster" for the local environment, and she warned the land transfer plan would "permanently sever the very heart of the wildlife corridor established by Congress in 1979."
"This corridor, running along the Rio Grande... is prime wildlife habitat, and nothing gained in this ‘swap’ will be equal," Branch emphasized. "This will be a huge loss."
In addition to opposition from the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the proposed transfer to SpaceX has drawn significant opposition from some local residents. According to a report published last week by the San Antonio Express-News, more than 3,400 letters have been submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service expressing opposition to the transfer.
Musk, who on Wednesday was accused by politicians in the UK of stoking racial hatred that led to violent pogroms in the city of Belfast, is aiming to become the world's first trillionaire ty making SpaceX a publicly traded company this month.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Outrage as Trump Blows Up Endangered Species Act Protection by Redefining One Word
One conservation campaigner accused the president of "trying to drive a knife through the heart of the Endangered Species Act."
Apr 16, 2025
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."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Landmark Victory': US Proposes Endangered Species Protections for Monarch Butterfly
"We're hoping that this is a call to everybody to say this species is in decline, and now is our opportunity to help reverse that decline," said one federal scientist.
Dec 10, 2024
Biodiversity defenders on Tuesday welcomed a "long overdue" move by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service toward protecting the monarch butterfly under the Endangered Species Act—the result, the Center for Biological Diversity said, of a lawsuit filed by several groups to safeguard the pollinators and their fragile habitat.
The FWS proposed designating the butterfly as threatened with extinction, four years after monarchs were placed on a waiting list for protection.
"For too long, the monarch butterfly has been waiting in line, hoping for new protections while its population has plummeted. This announcement by the Fish and Wildlife Service gets this iconic flier closer to the protections it needs, and given its staggering drop in numbers, that can't happen soon enough," said Steve Blackledge, senior director of conservation campaigns for Environment America.
Monarch butterflies journey from Mexico each spring to points across the United States east of the Rocky Mountains to pollinate and reproduce. When cooler weather arrives they migrate back to the south for the winter.
But their populations have declined by more than 95% from over 4.5 million in the 1980s, leaving the western monarch with a 99% chance of becoming extinct over the next six decades, according to federal scientists.
The decline has been driven by the widespread use of herbicides like Roundup on milkweed, the monarch's sole food source, as well as the use of neonicotinoid insecticides. Millions of monarchs are also killed by vehicles annually during their migration, and in their winter habitats they face the loss of forests due to logging.
"The monarch butterfly is an iconic North American species and like other such iconic species, including the bald eagle and American peregrine falcon, it too deserves a chance at recovery."
Rising temperatures have also disrupted the monarch's reproduction and migration, with warmer weather tricking them into staying in the north later in the year.
"The species has been declining for a number of years," FWS biologist Kristen Lundh told The Washington Post. "We're hoping that this is a call to everybody to say this species is in decline, and now is our opportunity to help reverse that decline."
Western monarchs are down to an estimated 233,394 butterflies, while experts say there are several million eastern monarchs in existence.
"The protections that come with Endangered Species Act listing increase the chance that these precious pollinators will rebound and recover throughout their historic range," said Andrew Carter, director of conservation policy for Defenders of Wildlife. "The monarch butterfly is an iconic North American species and like other such iconic species, including the bald eagle and American peregrine falcon, it too deserves a chance at recovery."
The FWS is also proposing to designate 4,395 acres of the western monarch's overwintering sites as a critical habitat.
If the butterfly's protections are finalized—a process that could be completed by the end of 2025—landowners would be required to get federal approval for development that could harm the monarch.
During his first term, President-elect Donald Trump weakened the Endangered Species Act, limiting the definition of a "critical habitat."
"Today's monarch listing decision is a landmark victory 10 years in the making. It is also a damning precedent, revealing the driving role of pesticides and industrial agriculture in the ongoing extinction crisis," said George Kimbrell, legal director at the Center for Food Safety. "But the job isn't done... The service must do what science and the law require and promptly finalize protection for monarchs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates 'Crushed' That Biden Import Rules Don't Ban Elephant Trophies
The new restrictions will do nothing to solve "a devastating biodiversity crisis that requires an elephant-sized response," said one campaigner.
Mar 29, 2024
Biodiversity advocates said Friday that the Biden administration had taken "a major step back from true conservation accountability" as it announced new restrictions on imports of elephant hunting trophies—restrictions that did not go as far as banning them outright.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) said it was strengthening the African elephant rule under Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, requiring countries to annually certify that their elephant populations are "biologically sustainable" and that habitats for the animals are stable. The U.S. will continue importing trophies and live elephants from countries that prove sustainability.
The restrictions also require countries to have domestic wildlife laws that meet the requirements of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), but that provision doesn't go into effect until 2026.
The restrictions could eliminate trophy imports from Botswana, Mozambique, and Zambia, which currently have national legislation that may not meet CITES requirements.
A previous proposal from the administration in 2022 required that elephant populations were "stable or increasing" in countries in order for imports to continue.
Tanya Sanerib, international legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), said the new rules will do nothing to solve "a devastating biodiversity crisis that requires an elephant-sized response."
"These are mouse-sized rule changes that continue to treat elephants like commodities," said Sanerib. "We need global change that prioritizes biodiversity over profits."
CBD pledged to "do everything we can to fight threats to imperiled elephants from trophy hunting."
The new restrictions were announced almost exactly three years after the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reassessed protections for elephants, and found that poaching for ivory and habitat loss over several decades had pushed two elephant species closer to extinction.
The African forest elephant is now "critically endangered" and the African savanna elephant is now listed as "endangered." Before 2021, the two kinds of African elephants were treated as a single species and were listed only as "vulnerable."
The Obama administration in 2016 imposed a near-ban on the elephant ivory trade.
The following year, then-President Donald Trump infuriated conservation groups by reversing the ban on imported elephant trophies from Zimbabwe and Zambia, a decision he quickly reverse due to the uproar it caused. In 2018, the Republican president said the FWS would begin issuing permits "to import a sport-hunted trophy on a case-by-case basis."
Sanerib on Friday said she and her organization were "crushed this rule doesn't ban trade in elephant hunting trophies to the United States, and it doesn't even require stable elephant populations to allow trophy imports."
"These magnificent animals are globally cherished but under threat," said Sanerib, "and it's high time we stop letting wealthy trophy hunters turn them into décor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Wildlife Champions Say Biden Species Protections Not Enough to Reverse Trump Rollbacks
"The administration's proposal does nothing to address the fact that endangered species are dying a death by a thousand cuts," said one campaigner.
Jun 21, 2023
While some wildlife defenders on Wednesday welcomed proposed Biden administration regulations aimed at reversing some Trump-era rollbacks of the Endangered Species Act, others voiced disappointment that the new rules won't undo much of the damage inflicted by the previous administration.
Rules proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries would make it more difficult to remove a species from the endangered list, while restoring a provision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that safeguards species listed as "threatened"—one classification level below "endangered."
Additionally, one of the proposals contains a provision prohibiting consideration of economic impacts when determining whether to protect species. Another rule would enable the designation of critical habitat for climate-impacted species.
"As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, we need bold, transformative action, not more policy half-measures."
"These proposed revisions reaffirm our commitment to conserving America's wildlife and ensuring the Endangered Species Act works for both species and people," USFWS Director Martha Williams said in a statement.
NOAA Fisheries Assistant Administrator Janet Coit said that "these proposed regulatory updates will help ensure the [ESA] continues to serve as an effective conservation tool in the face of continued challenges, including biodiversity loss and climate change."
Defenders of Wildlife, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, was among the organizations welcoming the administration's proposal.
"While areas of concern exist within these new regulations, restoring automatic protections for our nation's threatened species is a huge step in the right direction for the Endangered Species Act and biodiversity," Jamie Rappaport Clark, the group's president and CEO, said in a statement.
"As humans, we are inextricably linked with the ecosystems around us," added Clark, a former USFWS director. "Saving nature and establishing scientifically sound ways to coexist with wildlife must be a national priority. Our future depends on it."
Washington, D.C.-based legal advocate Earthjustice argued the proposals don't go far enough.
"These are promising steps toward restoring the purpose and power of the Endangered Species Act, and getting these protections back is why we challenged the harmful Trump rules for the past four years," Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles said in a statement.
"By mending the rules interpreting the ESA, the Biden administration can significantly help us address the worsening biodiversity crisis and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the act," Boyles added.
The Tucson, Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) criticized the Biden administration for "keeping in place some of the most significant rollbacks" of the ESA.
"This disappointing proposal fails to protect our nation's endangered plants and animals. It restores pieces of the Endangered Species Act but keeps many of the disastrous Trump-era provisions in place," CBD senior endangered species policy specialist Stephanie Kurose said in a statement.
"The administration’s proposal does nothing to address the fact that endangered species are dying a death by a thousand cuts," Kurose continued. "This is a major omission that shortchanges not only species like the spotted owl, but also the ecosystems they and all of us depend on for our survival."
"If federal officials truly wanted to stem the extinction crisis, they'd restore the full power of the [ESA] and overhaul the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service," Kurose added. "As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, we need bold, transformative action, not more policy half-measures."
Former President Donald Trump—currently the frontrunner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination—oversaw what one environmental campaigner at the time called a "steamrolling" of the ESA, "our most effective wildlife protection law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy