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
Most Popular