This post was originally published by Blue Tomorrow, a Substack written and curated by the author. Reprinted with permission.
I was writing in a New Orleans coffee house last spring when another customer noticed the ocean stickers on my laptop and offered me a new one in support of a regional cause: the Rice’s whale, a species that had only recently been identified and is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). That’s because only about 50 of these creatures exist. And they all live full-time in the Gulf of Mexico.
I’ve seen many species of whales, but never this one. I’m told they have very distinct vocalization patterns and a unique diving pattern. Unlike many whales that feed near the surface, Rice's whales make deep dives toward the seafloor during the day to feed on fish and spend their nights sleeping within 50 feet of the surface.
The Trump administration apparently wants them gone.
Last Friday, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum announced he will convene a rare meeting of the Endangered Species Committee — known as the “God Squad” — to consider stripping away ESA protections across the entire “Gulf of America.” That is, to condemn the Rice’s whale and other vulnerable species to extinction. The reason, we are told, is concern for “oil and gas exploration, development, and production.”
Some things to say up front: To anyone familiar with the law of natural resources, the announcement is so outrageous and ridiculous as to amount to trolling, which is probably what it is, in part. That said, such ridiculousness now requires serious organizations and serious lawyers to mount multi-year campaigns to fight these efforts, lest the wondrous Gulf of Mexico be downgraded to an enormous 24-hour gas station.
OK, I promised not to steer myself into a dark place.
There are things we can do to get the word out and stop this. But before I get there, let me fill you in on the Gulf’s endangered species, the conflict with Big Oil, and the human-made limits of the God Squad.
Rice’s whales share Gulf waters with at least 18 other threatened or endangered species, including the sperm whale (the star of Moby Dick) and five species of sea turtles.
They live uneasily with another Gulf leviathan: Big Oil and Gas. Offshore drilling was invented in Louisiana, and its expansion in the Gulf over the last hundred-plus years has resulted in one of the highest concentrations of offshore oil infrastructure in the world, with more than 3,500 active wells and 14,000 inactive wells in these waters.
The oil industry poses several risks to Rice’s whales, most notably vessel strikes (remember, they sleep near the surface), incessant noise (making it hard to communicate), and oil spills, including the lingering effects of the BP oil spill. Did I mention that ocean heating, caused by carbon emissions, is redistributing the whale’s food supply and inhibiting its reproduction?
I mentioned that the God Squad could condemn the Rice’s whale and other species to extinction.
Is government-forced extinction really a thing? The answer is yes.
Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to “jeopardize the continued existence” of an endangered species. When the government concludes an action would jeopardize an endangered species, the action cannot proceed.
Congress created the God Squad 40 years ago as a safety valve of last resort to prevent this strict standard from upending rare projects of critical importance. The gravity of the decision is reflected in the membership of the committee, which is made up of the secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and the Army; administrators from NOAA and EPA; and the head of the Council of Economic Advisers. (Representatives of affected states are also included.) Under the law, the Endangered Species Committee meets to decide on an ESA exemption only after a public process, including a trial-like hearing in which evidence is formally presented.
In the 40 years since Congress created the committee, it has met only a handful of times and has voted only twice to exempt a project from ESA protections — once for a dam affecting whooping cranes and a second time for timber sales affecting the northern spotted owl. Thankfully both birds are still hanging on. (The dam project contained significant mitigation measures. The proposed timber sales were ultimately withdrawn.)
Though called the God Squad, it’s important to understand that this committee is still bound by human-made law. And its actions and decisions can be challenged in court.
I see at least three ways that Trump’s God Squad could get itself in legal trouble.
First, the administration appears to be using the exception process in an overly broad way. Rather than singling out a particular project (like a dam or a timber sale), it instead refers to an entire category of activity — offshore oil and gas development across a vast region. On top of that, Trump wants the God Squad on speed dial. He has ordered the committee to meet “not less than quarterly.” He seems to envision a regular docket of extinction inquiries. Whatever Congress was thinking when it put the Secretary of the Interior in charge of God’s creation, it did not mean that.
As law professor Patrick Parenteau told E&E News, the idea that Secretary Burgum can “whistle up the committee whenever he [feels] like it is complete and utter nonsense.”
Second, the ESA’s multi-step procedural requirements on this matter are clear. The committee can only convene in response to an application made within 90 days of a “jeopardy” finding. Before rendering a decision, it must hold a public hearing, including witness testimony, that is presided over by an administrative law judge. None of these requirements has been met. While there have been “jeopardy” findings involving oil projects and the Rice’s whale, the most recent was issued nearly a year ago. There has been no announcement of a public meeting, no administrative law judge discussed or appointed. For these reasons, the Center for Biological Diversity today filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the committee from convening at all.
Third, to grant an exemption, the committee must find there is no “reasonable and prudent alternative” to the proposed action. The problem for the oil industry is that earlier “jeopardy” findings involving the Rice’s whale (including the most recent one) have found that industry could indeed operate in a way that would not jeopardize the species — namely by doing things like limiting vessel speed, conducting better monitoring, and limiting nighttime activity. No one is saying oil companies cannot drill for oil, only that they must do it responsibly.
This is all very frustrating and sad, I know. But the answer to despair is action. Here are three things you can do.
The Gulf of Mexico is no gas station. It is an undulating universe of all five kingdoms of planetary life, from the world’s biggest whale (the great blue) to the tiniest one-cell alga. We belong there too, as do our future generations. You see, the Gulf belongs to all of us. Not to a jury-rigged God Squad. And certainly not to an oil company.
Showing 2,945 results
Robert Verchick | March 19, 2026
I was writing in a New Orleans coffee house last spring when another customer noticed the ocean stickers on my laptop and offered me a new one in support of a regional cause: the Rice’s whale, a species that had only recently been identified and is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). That’s because only about 50 of these creatures exist. And they all live full-time in the Gulf of Mexico. I’ve seen many species of whales, but never this one. I’m told they have very distinct vocalization patterns and a unique diving pattern. Unlike many whales that feed near the surface, Rice's whales make deep dives toward the seafloor during the day to feed on fish and spend their nights sleeping within 50 feet of the surface. The Trump administration apparently wants them gone.
Brian Gumm, Bryan Dunning, Catalina Gonzalez, Federico Holm, James Goodwin, Rachel Mayo, Sophie Loeb, Spencer Green, Tara Quinonez | March 12, 2026
We mourn the lives of all Iranian civilians and U.S. service members lost in the illegal preemptive strike on Iran, and that of all civilians killed and hurt in subsequent strikes in the region. This war is continuing to fuel broader conflict and instability in the region and around the world. We join every American who objects to this war. Our planet can be a beautiful place, and stewarding and protecting all of its inhabitants and its natural resources is our noblest calling.
Daniel Farber | February 24, 2026
If the Trump EPA successfully repeals the endangerment findings for vehicles and stationary sources, states will be the only resort for climate action. A key question is how the repeals would impact state power relating to carbon emissions. The bottom line answers are: (1) the impact on state power to regulate tailpipe emissions seems unclear but could be positive; (2) there would be no effect on state power to regulate stationary sources like power plants; (3) plaintiffs suing oil companies would probably benefit.
Federico Holm | February 19, 2026
How has the local renewable energy ordinance landscape changed since mid-2023, the last time we took stock of this fast-moving policy issue? It turns out a lot has happened since then. In our latest analysis, we address this question by summarizing the major trends across the Lower 48, including a comprehensive update of our local ordinance database. This update provides advocates, journalists, researchers, and county board officials with valuable information, in an open and accessible way. With it, we seek to empower stakeholders with critical data in our efforts to ensure that the clean energy transition not only happens, but that it does so consistent with just transition and energy democracy principles.
Daniel Farber | February 18, 2026
Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overturned its 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles endanger human health and welfare. EPA argued that it lacked the legal power to regulate these greenhouse gas emissions. As I have written elsewhere, EPA’s arguments are difficult to square with a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Massachusetts v. EPA.
Sophie Loeb | February 17, 2026
Data centers are increasingly making headlines for the serious problems they create for the communities where they are proposed and built, as well as for the resistance from people who live there, who refuse to accept the rising energy bills, noise and air pollution, and strains on water infrastructure that inevitably accompany these new neighbors. On Tuesday, February 10, I moderated a webinar, “From Community to Congress: Advocating on AI Data Centers,” that broke down the (de)regulatory landscape of data centers.
Daniel Farber | February 13, 2026
The other shoe has dropped with the announcement of the final rule repealing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare. The Trump administration has the nasty habit of announcing new regulations before posting them. That means that for the moment, we are limited to the EPA press release.
James Goodwin | February 12, 2026
Over the course of more than a century, serious statespeople came together to build the modern administrative state out of a shared commitment to redeeming their constitutional duty to form a more perfect union. The February 12 action to rescind the 2009 EPA endangerment finding represents the single greatest defiance of that project yet by the Trump administration.
James Goodwin | February 2, 2026
To the extent that people think about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at all, they likely think of an institution that works to safeguard our health and well-being, and that of our environment. So, The New York Times made quite a splash recently when it reported that the agency had adopted a new policy under which it would stop considering the health benefits of two of the most harmful and pervasive air pollutants: fine particulate matter and ozone.