This is a white paper on the Endangered Species Act and the current situation of its standing.
Policy
The Endangered Species Act was established to conserve endangered and threatened plants and animals in the United States.1 It was signed into law by then-President Richard Nixon in 1973. It ensures that federal agencies must collaborate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries Service to ensure their actions do not threaten listed species or harm their critical habitats. Additionally, any “taking” of endangered species is prohibited, along with the import, export, and interstate trade of these species.1
The act is in response to the decline in the population of various species over the years, which is why it remains in effect today. The World Wildlife Fund claims that the population sizes of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians have dropped an average of 68% between 1970 and 2016.2. The ever-growing human population is contributing to a decline in the animal population due to the growth of human consumption, global trade, and urbanization.2 The continuous loss and endangerment of animals can affect agricultural systems, disrupt ecosystems, and food security. The official policy document declares that “various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untampered by adequate concern and conservation.”3 The endangerment of wildlife needed governmental intervention, which led to the act’s creation.1
Political Debate
The public response to the act has been positive since its beginning. The public is said to have strongly supported it, and its support has remained consistent. It has been credited with saving the bald eagle, brown pelican, peregrine falcon, and numerous other species.4 Decades of polling consistently showed that the majority of Americans support the act.4 Despite successes under its name and support by the general public, it has been under attack for decades by politicians. The ESA has been criticized for “placing restrictions on industries such as logging, mining, and oil and gas development. Each industry argues that the ESA places an undue burden on their operations.”4 [i]It has stayed a topic of discussion with attempts at funding cuts, weakening protections for species, and singling out species to ensure they are excluded from ESA protection. Some of these battles have gone on for decades.4 A significant attack has now targeted the ESA.
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order called “Declaring a National Energy Emergency,” specifically identifying the ESA as a barrier to achieving energy security. The motivation is that we “need a reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our Nation’s manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense industries, and to sustain the basics of modern life and military preparedness.”5 The ESA has stopped the urge to dig for fossil fuels for decades. The order refers to the ESA, saying that, “The committee or its designees shall nonetheless convene to identify obstacles to domestic energy infrastructure specifically deriving from implementation of the ESA or the Marine Mammal Protection Act, to include regulatory reform efforts, species listings, and other related matters with the aim of developing procedural, regulatory, and interagency improvements.”5 The order aims to work around any obstacle offered by the ESA, since a significant component of the act is not destroying or modifying wildlife habitats without regulations.
Is energy security worth defying the morals of the ESA?
The outcome of drilling for oil benefits the economy. The United States is the world’s leading oil and natural gas producer and supports millions of American jobs.6 The executive order sent by the White House uses this information to compromise in the drilling by stating that: “This would create jobs and economic prosperity for Americans forgotten in the present economy, improve the United States’ trade balance, help our country compete with hostile foreign powers, strengthen relations with allies and partners, and support international peace and security.”5Oil extraction can significantly contribute to the economy over the long term.
With the barriers offered by the ESA gone, the economic benefits of oil and gas in America can prosper stronger than ever before. It not only gives Americans jobs, but oil and gas production also helps save American consumers an estimated $203 billion annually.6 Even with its risks, hydraulic fracturing is essential in the job market. According to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report, halting hydraulic fracturing would eliminate 19 million jobs (direct and indirect).6
However, while jobs are being created and oil companies are profiting from the extraction of fossil fuels, the environment continues to deteriorate. The United States is already the world’s leading oil producer, so the necessity of declaring an energy order is questionable. It’s debatable that an executive order on drilling oil is a priority.
The ESA has allowed excessive fossil fuel development for decades, resulting in prosperous land and animal population management. However, this energy emergency risks animals and their habitats, even with the ESA in place.
The Effect on the Environment
The exploration that results in oil drilling disrupts our animals’ natural habitats: “Seismic techniques used to explore for oil under the ocean floor may harm fish and marine mammals. Drilling an oil well on land often requires clearing an area of vegetation.”7 Oil spills are also highly likely in this “energy emergency.” Most oil spills result from accidents at oil wells or involving pipelines, ships, trains, and trucks that transport oil from wells to refineries. These spills contaminate soil and water, potentially causing devastating explosions and fires.7
A standard oil production technique, known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking, extracts oil from rocks. Fracturing rock requires large amounts of water and the use of potentially hazardous chemicals to release oil from the rock strata. In some areas, significant water use for oil production can impact water availability for other uses and potentially harm aquatic habitats. Faulty well construction or improper handling may result in leaks and spills of fracturing fluids.7 Even with some precautions around these techniques, there is still a significant possibility of affecting wildlife and their habitats.
Although, over the years of oil drilling, technology has improved efficiency. Technology such as “satellites, global positioning systems, remote sensing devices, and 3-D and 4-D seismic technologies makes it possible to discover oil reserves while drilling fewer exploratory wells. Mobile and smaller slim-hole drilling rigs reduce the area affected by drilling activities. The use of horizontal and directional drilling makes it possible for a single well to produce oil from a much larger area, which reduces the number of wells necessary to develop an oil resource.”6 There are possibilities of oil drilling without significant harm to wildlife.
The Endangered Species Act, at its core, is meant to set regulations with the well-being of our wildlife in mind. The actions behind the executive order put aside those priorities and put the economy at its core instead.
Priorities
The ESA continues to be criticized for holding back oil production, and this executive order ignited that conversation. Brent Bennett, energy policy director for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, said that Trump’s executive order could help stop the Endangered Species Act from resulting in drawn-out permitting processes and lengthy litigation, hoping that it can improve some permitting processes and remove barriers brought by the ESA.8 The long-standing act is under the spotlight.
The spotlight is bringing great debate on what the nation’s priorities are. The economy itself is the limit of prioritizing wildlife. One cannot prosper without the other deteriorating, at least in the topic of oil drilling. It’s a choice between benefiting fossil fuel companies and protecting endangered species.
There are attempts to lessen the negative effects of extracting oil on wildlife, but it could never be as absolute as limiting it entirely.
The debate will continue as the energy emergency conversation continues, with some vowing to fight the order in court.8 It’s a debate with valid arguments on either side, but the morals and values of the ESA continue to have a rightful hold on the people against the executive order.
The optimal choice is to stay informed on the state of the ESA and the energy order. Various changes are bound to happen in a new presidential term, and the absolute priority is to be on the side that leads the country to a situation that benefits those who truly need it: our wildlife.
Citations
1 “Summary of the Endangered Species Act” (Environmental Protection Agency, 2024). https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-endangered-species-act
2 “68% Average Decline in Species Population Sizes Since 1970, Says New WWF Report”(World Wildlife Fund, 2020) https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/68-average-decline-in-species-population-sizes-since-1970-says-new-wwf-report
3 “ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF1973” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1973) https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/endangered-species-act-accessible_7.pdf
4“Species Under Siege: Why the Endangered Species Act is in Congressional Crosshairs” (Defenders of Wildlife, 2023) https://defenders.org/blog/2023/03/species-under-siege-why-endangered-species-act-congressional-crosshairs
5” Declaring a National Energy Emergency.” (The White House. 2025). Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/declaring-a-national-energy-emergency/
6 “The Economic Benefits of Oil & Gas.” (Department of Energy, 2020.) https://www.energy.gov/articles/economic-impact-oil-and-gas.
7“Oil and Petroleum Products Explained.” (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2022.) https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/oil-and-the-environment.php.
8“Environmentalists Say Trump’s Energy Order Would Subvert the Endangered Species Act.” (US News, 2025.) https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/maine/articles/2025-01-22/environmentalists-say-trumps-energy-order-would-subvert-the-endangered-species-act.