The Trump Administration's Latest Rollback Has Environmental Groups Up in Arms

US President Donald Trump makes remarks as Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Vice President Mike Pence listen at the Department of the Interior in Washington, DC. (Photo by Mike Theiler-Pool/Getty Images)

In the 1500s, an estimated 30 to 60 million North American bison —or buffalo— roamed the Great Plains of North America. But over hunting brought their numbers down to just 325 wild bison left in the United States by 1884.

But thanks to conservation efforts, the United States official national mammal recovered to 20,000-25,000 wild bison on public lands and at least 250,000 bison in private herds by the end of the 1990s. Much of the work was done thanks to laws like the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

North American bison grave in South Dakota on the 777 Bison Ranch. (Facebook)

But industries like mining and oil drilling, see the ESA as a blockade to profits, not a tool for preserving the United States natural resources. To that end, the administration of President Donald Trump is proposing changes to the ESA.

The proposal, announced jointly by the Interior and Commerce departments, ends the practice of extending similar protections to species that are listed as either endangered or threatened. If approved, protections for threatened plants and animals would be made on a case-by-case basis.

The ESA defines an endangered species as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." While the definition of threatened is "any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range."

Under the new Trump provisions, industry can destroy habitat of threatened species until they become endangered. Then one hopes their endangered status is discovered before they reach extinction.

Another portion of the proposal seeks to streamline environmental impact statements. At present, before a project, like an oil pipeline or strip mining, can begin an environmental impact assessment must be completed to gauge the effects on wildlife, plants and water tables. Industries with high levels of pollution, such as fracking and pipelines, argue the impact reviews harm their profits.

Trump's Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, faced criticism previously for decisions appearing to favor industry over natural resources. In particular, conservation groups and Native American tribes accused Zinke, and Trump, of reducing the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments to open the area for mining and oil drilling.

The proposed changes got pushback from Democrats Thursday.

"The Trump administration doesn’t seem to know any other way to handle the environment than as an obstacle to industry profits," said Arizona Democratic Representative Raúl Grijalva, ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, in a statement Thursday.

If a single company can make a single dollar from the destruction or displacement of an endangered species, it’s full speed ahead. The public doesn’t demand this; this is part of the endless special favors the White House and Department of the Interior are willing to do for their industry friends."

And environmentalists agree. Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity stated,

This proposal turns the extinction-prevention tool of the Endangered Species Act into a rubber stamp for powerful corporate interests. Allowing the federal government to turn a blind eye to climate change will be a death sentence for polar bears and hundreds of other animals and plants."

"These regulations are the heart of how the Endangered Species Act is implemented. Imperiled species depend on them for their very lives,” said Jamie Rappaport Clark, former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Clinton administration.

Unfortunately, the sweeping changes being proposed by the Trump administration include provisions that would undercut the effectiveness of the ESA and put species at risk of extinction. The signal being sent by the Trump administration is clear: Protecting America’s wildlife and wild lands is simply not on their agenda."

But Republican leaders, who have pushed for relaxed regulations for years, disagree as do members of the Trump administration. And this is not the first environmental law to be changed regarding United States wildlife.

In addition to shrinking several national monuments, the Trump administration's National Park Service announced the end of protections that prohibited the hunting of bear cubs, as well as wolves and pups, in their dens in Alaska’s national preserves. President Barack Obama enacted the protections during his administration.

Reactions online were largely in favor of the environment.

Interior and Commerce officials said the Endangered Species Act proposal will be published in the Federal Register soon. Anyone who wishes to comment may do so on a government website within 60 days after publication.

Shannon Finney/Getty Images

Across the country, states have instituted stay-at-home orders in an effort to curb the spread of the highly contagious virus that's upended daily life in the United States.

Late last month, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers issued one of these orders, urging his constituents to only leave their houses for necessary errands, such as getting groceries or filling prescriptions.

There's just one problem: Wisconsin's elections are scheduled for April 7. In addition to the Presidential primaries, Wisconsinites will vote for judicial positions, school board seats, and thousands of other offices.

The Democratic and Republican National Committees took the case to the Supreme Court, with Democrats arguing that the deadline for mailing absentee ballots should be extended by a week, to April 13, in order to facilitate voting from home.

With a Wisconsin Supreme Court Seat up for grabs on Tuesday, Republicans predictably made the case for why as few people as possible should be permitted to vote. It was a continuation of Wisconsin GOP efforts to suppress the vote, which included rejecting a demand from Governor Evers to automatically mail an absentee ballot to every resident.

The Republican majority in United States Supreme Court sided with the RNC and the election in Wisconsin will carry on as scheduled. This is despite Wisconsin being unprepared for the surge in absentee ballot requests, which leapt from a typical 250,000 to over 1.2 million in reaction to the virus. Thousands of these voters won't even receive these ballots until after the election, thereby preventing them from exercising their right to vote.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a blistering dissent to the majority's decision, saying:

"Either [voters] will have to brave the polls, endangering their own and others' safety. Or they will lose their right to vote, through no fault of their own. That is a matter of utmost importance — to the constitutional rights of Wisconsin's citizens, the integrity of the State's election process, and in this most extraordinary time, the health of the Nation."

She was flabbergasted that her more conservative colleagues didn't think a global pandemic and national crisis was enough to justify emergency policies ensuring Wisconsinites their right to vote:

"The Court's suggestion that the current situation is not 'substantially different' from 'an ordinary
election' boggles the mind...Now, under this Court's order, tens of thousands of absentee voters, unlikely to receive their ballots in time to cast them, will be left quite literally without a vote."

A majority of the Supreme Court may not have agreed with Ginsburg, but the court of public opinion was fully on her side.

The Republican efforts indicated to some that the party cares more about maintaining control than preserving lives.

Large crowds are already gathering in Wisconsin to vote.

In a bit of devastating irony, the Supreme Court voted remotely when making its decision.

For more information about the tried and true tactic of GOP voter suppression, check out Uncounted, available here.

JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Despite numerous cautions from medical experts—including those on his staff—President Donald Trump continues to tout hydroxychloroquine as a promising treatment for the virus that's brought daily life in the United States to a standstill.

The drug has undergone no clinical trials to scientifically test its efficacy on the virus, and the evidence on its behalf is anecdotal at best. One Fox News guest, Access Health International Chairman William Haseltine, called it a "quack cure."

Keep reading... Show less
Catherine Nance / Echoes Wire/Barcroft Media via Getty Images

President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, is back in the public eye after keeping a relatively low profile following the impeachment trial against his client.

Keep reading... Show less
FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images // Mark Wilson/Getty Images

With the global pandemic bringing daily life in the United States to a screeching halt, the 2020 campaign has become somewhat of an afterthought as Americans focus on staying healthy and practicing social distancing.

But though the campaign trail is no longer in full swing, voters across the country can't help but see this crisis as a test of competence for President Donald Trump and a test of leadership for former Vice President and likely Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

Keep reading... Show less
Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images // Samuel Corum/Getty Images

A recent in-depth report from the Washington Post detailed the 70 day period between President Donald Trump's first knowledge of the virus and his eventual acknowledgment that the pandemic—which has killed over 10,000 people in the United States—poses a serious threat.

Trump's constant dismissal of the virus wasn't for lack of experts and longtime lawmakers warning him of the possibilities, as Washington Post opinion writer Greg Sargent points out.

Keep reading... Show less
JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

Author and military historian Max Boot is a self-identified conservative, but he's by no means a supporter of President Donald Trump. Boot endorsed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election and he's frequently referred to Trump as the worst President in modern times.

But in a blistering new op-ed for the Washington Post, Boot removes the "in modern times" qualifier, referring to Trump as simply the worst President in U.S. history, citing his delayed and inadequate response to the virus that's brought the United States to a standstill.

Keep reading... Show less