In The News

Environmentalists say Trump's energy order would subvert Endangered Species Act

Trump's order tells federal departments to treat energy production as an emergency, which could help expedite approval of energy projects that might otherwise be held up. Getty Images

Environmental groups concerned about loss of protections for vanishing animals see one of President Donald Trump’s early executive orders as a method of subverting the Endangered Species Act in the name of fossil fuel extraction and corporate interests.

Trump declared an energy emergency via executive order earlier this week amid a promise to “drill, baby, drill.” One section of the order states that the long-standing Endangered Species Act can’t be allowed to serve as an obstacle to energy development.

That language is a pathway to rolling back protections for everything from tiny birds like the golden-cheeked warbler to enormous marine mammals like the North Atlantic right whale, conservation groups said Wednesday. Some vowed to fight the order in court.

The Endangered Species Act has been a hurdle for the development of fossil fuels in the U.S. for decades, and weakening the act would accelerate the decline and potential extinction of numerous endangered species, including whales and sea turtles, said Gib Brogan, a campaign director with conservation group Oceana.

“This executive order, in a lot of ways, is a gift to the oil and gas industry and is being sold as a way to respond to the emergency declaration by President Trump,” Brogan said. “There is no emergency. The species continue to suffer. And this executive order will only accelerate the decline of endangered species in the United States.”

The Endangered Species Act has existed for more than 50 years and is widely credited by scientists and environmentalists with helping save iconic American species such as the bald eagle from extinction. A key section of the act directs federal agencies to work to conserve endangered and threatened species and use their authorities to protect them.

Trump's order declaring a national energy emergency took direct aim at the authority provided by the Endangered Species Act. It orders federal departments to treat energy production as an emergency, which could help expedite approval of energy projects that might otherwise be held up.

The order also convenes a committee to “identify obstacles to domestic energy infrastructure specifically deriving from implementation of the ESA or the Marine Mammal Protection Act,” another landmark conservation law. It states the committee could consider regulatory reforms, including “species listings,” as part of its work.

The Trump administration did not respond to a request for comment on the executive order. The order defines energy mostly as fossil fuels such as crude oil and and coal and does not include renewable energies such as wind power. It also states that energy production is an emergency because “an affordable and reliable domestic supply of energy is a fundamental requirement for the national and economic security of any nation.”

While environmentalists herald the Endangered Species Act as a landmark law, pro-development and free market interests have long criticized it for holding up the building of energy, infrastructure, housing and other projects. Some, including the influential Heartland Institute, applauded Trump's declaration of an energy emergency this week.

Conservatives have also decried the Endangered Species Act as inefficient. It took the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service years to follow the process of potentially delisting the golden-cheeked warbler, a small songbird that breeds only in the forests of central Texas, said Connor Mighell, an attorney with Texas Public Policy Foundation, a free market research institute.

Trump's executive order could help stop the Endangered Species Act from resulting in drawn-out permitting processes and lengthy litigation, said Brent Bennett, energy policy director for Texas Public Policy Foundation.

“We're hoping that can improve some of the permitting processes and remove some of these barriers,” Bennett said.

But the act is critical to maintaining species threatened with extinction, environmentalists said. They cite whales such as the North Atlantic right whale, which numbers less than 400 and is vulnerable to collisions with ships and entanglement in fishing gear, as an example of an animal that must be protected under the act. The Rice's whale, which numbers even fewer and is vulnerable to disruption from oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, is another prime example, environmentalists said.

The nation's symbol, the bald eagle, is a perfect example of the importance and effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act, said Andrew Bowman, president of the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife.

“President Trump’s election to office did not come with a mandate to deny Americans a clean and healthy environment or destroy decades of conservation successes that have ensured the survival and recovery of some of America’s most iconic species, including the bald eagle, which was newly named our country’s national bird and is only with us today thanks to the Endangered Species Act," Bowman said.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Greenhouse gases continue to rise, and the challenges they pose are not going away. Photo via Getty Images

For the past 40 years, climate policy has often felt like two steps forward, one step back. Regulations shift with politics, incentives get diluted, and long-term aspirations like net-zero by 2050 seem increasingly out of reach. Yet greenhouse gases continue to rise, and the challenges they pose are not going away.

This matters because the costs are real. Extreme weather is already straining U.S. power grids, damaging homes, and disrupting supply chains. Communities are spending more on recovery while businesses face rising risks to operations and assets. So, how can the U.S. prepare and respond?

The Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies (CES) points to two complementary strategies. First, invest in large-scale public adaptation to protect communities and infrastructure. Second, reframe carbon as a resource, not just a waste stream to be reduced.

Why Focusing on Emissions Alone Falls Short

Peter Hartley argues that decades of global efforts to curb emissions have done little to slow the rise of CO₂. International cooperation is difficult, the costs are felt immediately, and the technologies needed are often expensive. Emissions reduction has been the central policy tool for decades, and it has been neither sufficient nor effective.

One practical response is adaptation, which means preparing for climate impacts we can’t avoid. Some of these measures are private, taken by households or businesses to reduce their own risks, such as farmers shifting crop types, property owners installing fire-resistant materials, or families improving insulation. Others are public goods that require policy action. These include building stronger levees and flood defenses, reinforcing power grids, upgrading water systems, revising building codes, and planning for wildfire risks. Such efforts protect people today while reducing long-term costs, and they work regardless of the source of extreme weather. Adaptation also does not depend on global consensus; each country, state, or city can act in its own interest. Many of these measures even deliver benefits beyond weather resilience, such as stronger infrastructure and improved security against broader threats.

McKinsey research reinforces this logic. Without a rapid scale-up of climate adaptation, the U.S. will face serious socioeconomic risks. These include damage to infrastructure and property from storms, floods, and heat waves, as well as greater stress on vulnerable populations and disrupted supply chains.

Making Carbon Work for Us

While adaptation addresses immediate risks, Ken Medlock points to a longer-term opportunity: turning carbon into value.

Carbon can serve as a building block for advanced materials in construction, transportation, power transmission, and agriculture. Biochar to improve soils, carbon composites for stronger and lighter products, and next-generation fuels are all examples. As Ken points out, carbon-to-value strategies can extend into construction and infrastructure. Beyond creating new markets, carbon conversion could deliver lighter and more resilient materials, helping the U.S. build infrastructure that is stronger, longer-lasting, and better able to withstand climate stress.

A carbon-to-value economy can help the U.S. strengthen its manufacturing base and position itself as a global supplier of advanced materials.

These solutions are not yet economic at scale, but smart policies can change that. Expanding the 45Q tax credit to cover carbon use in materials, funding research at DOE labs and universities, and supporting early markets would help create the conditions for growth.

Conclusion

Instead of choosing between “doing nothing” and “net zero at any cost,” we need a third approach that invests in both climate resilience and carbon conversion.

Public adaptation strengthens and improves the infrastructure we rely on every day, including levees, power grids, water systems, and building standards that protect communities from climate shocks. Carbon-to-value strategies can complement these efforts by creating lighter, more resilient carbon-based infrastructure.

CES suggests this combination is a pragmatic way forward. As Peter emphasizes, adaptation works because it is in each nation’s self-interest. And as Ken reminds us, “The U.S. has a comparative advantage in carbon. Leveraging it to its fullest extent puts the U.S. in a position of strength now and well into the future.”

-----------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

Trending News