President Trump’s executive order declaring an “energy emergency” could have far-reaching effects across the country. To increase energy supply and strengthen America’s energy security, the President is calling for comprehensive regulatory reform, including help from the so-called “God Squad.” This little-known and rarely utilized group is officially known as the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Committee, and has only been convened three times since its creation in the first round of ESA Amendments in 1978. Now, it is required to meet quarterly to “identify obstacles to domestic energy infrastructure specifically deriving from implementation of the ESA or the Marine Mammal Protection Act.”
While invoking the God Squad may seem puzzling—since the committee lacks the authority to exempt a group from the ESA without a formal request— the 51-year-old Endangered Species Act is long overdue for reform. The well-intentioned law, originally designed to protect and restore endangered species, has ultimately fallen short of its goals. Despite the Fish and Wildlife Service’s goal to recover 300 of the 1,700 species listed under the ESA by 2023, the law has only recovered 3% of those species.
Not only has the ESA failed to achieve its restoration goals, but it has also inadvertently harmed communities, discouraged local conservation efforts, and harmed the development of critical energy and forestry projects. Rather than incentivize cooperation, the law has often created headaches for developers and property owners—with unimpressive conservation results.
The provisions of the ESA apply not only to federal lands but also to private property. Since nearly two-thirds of endangered species are located on private lands, landowners have been disproportionately impacted. They often face restrictions that limit their ability to develop and use their land. In some cases, landowners cannot farm on their own property or graze cattle. The American Farm Bureau Federation argues that the ESA has become a litigation-driven law that incentivizes courtroom battles rather than promoting genuine conservation efforts.
Any activity by a landowner that could harm an endangered or threatened species’ habitat is subject to a $25,000 fine, and in some cases, jail time. These penalties often lead landowners to destroy potential habitats before they’re protected, fearing loss of control over their own property. In such cases, the ESA ends up hindering, rather than helping, species recovery.
After the passage of the ESA, the Fish and Wildlife Service implemented a “blanket rule” that removed the distinction between threatened species and endangered species, treating them the same under the law. This rule has created significant regulatory challenges, including litigation and higher costs, for energy developers and forest management projects. What began as a cornerstone of American conservation has ultimately undermined broader environmental goals.
>>>READ: The Endangered Species Act: 50 Years Old and in Need of Reform
Given the need for reform, it’s important to note that relying on top-down executive orders to override the ESA may not be the most effective approach. Many of President Trump’s day one executive orders aimed to reverse orders from the Biden administration. Similarly, President Biden’s early orders sought to undo Trump’s first-term actions, including the ESA provision that differentiated between endangered and threatened species. This back and forth underscores the need for reforms to the ESA to come from Congress, through a bipartisan process, to ensure long-lasting, meaningful change.
The resurrected committee, consisting of seven members, including the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has a unique opportunity to prompt discussions on reform. Though they cannot enact change themselves, their investigations could lead to a broader push for ESA reform within Congress.
As the committee reviews how ESA provisions may be affecting domestic energy infrastructure, it should also consider their impact on our constitutional right to private property, the well-being of our nation’s farmers and ranchers—the backbone of our country—and their impact on endangered species themselves.
>>>READ: Animal Lovers Shouldn’t Panic Over Potential Endangered Species Act Rollbacks
Reforms to the ESA should incentivize landowners to protect endangered species on their land rather than requiring them to save them at their own expense. Local communities can develop tailored conservation strategies that suit their specific circumstances if given the flexibility. As recommended by PERC, eliminating the “blanket rule” and allowing states to take the lead in conservation efforts for both endangered and threatened species would be more effective for species repopulation. This change would remove unnecessary obstacles for energy developers and foresters during the permitting process, while ensuring endangered species’ protection.
The God Squad’s role in reviewing how ESA provisions impact domestic energy infrastructure can serve as a catalyst for bipartisan, effective reform. For our environment, economy, and communities, it’s time to embrace reform that serves both nature and the people who depend on it.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of C3.