Trump’s “God Squad” pits energy vs. endangered species

There’s a well-worn debate in U.S. politics that goes something like this: Would you rather have abundant and affordable energy or a clean, healthy planet where wildlife can flourish?

It sounds like an either/or choice, but it doesn’t have to be.

Many corporate leaders, including those I’ve worked with, know that wildlife conservation can also be good business.

That’s worth remembering after the Trump administration took the rare step of convening a special committee known as the “God Squad” to override one of the nation’s most important environmental protection laws, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, to exempt many U.S. oil and gas industry activities in the Gulf of Mexico.

What is the God Squad?

The Endangered Species Act requires that federal agencies avoid any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed under the act. That includes federal permits for development, mining, drilling or logging.

To comply with the law, companies can be required to take actions to avoid harming protected species. Those steps can be frustrating when they add delays and costs to already costly development projects.

Early in the law’s history, Congress amended it to include an exemption. It authorized the creation of the Endangered Species Act Committee, made up of federal agency leaders, which could grant exemptions to this prohibition on federal actions considered likely to risk extinction of a listed species.

That committee – the God Squad – includes six permanent members: the secretaries of the interior, agriculture and Army; the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, and the administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A seventh member of the committee is to be a designated individual from the affected state or states.

The committee’s rare actions in the past

Meetings of the God Squad are so rare that the committee has gathered only three times in its existence.

The committee’s authority is limited to very uncommon circumstances in which there are no “reasonable and prudent alternatives” that would avoid jeopardizing a listed species or impair a species’ critical habitat.

The committee’s first and most notable case was in 1979. It involved the snail darter, a tiny, then-endangered fish whose habitat would have been harmed by the proposed Tellico Dam in Tennessee. Around the same time, the committee also met to review an exemption application related to water management at the Grayrocks Dam in Wyoming and its effects on endangered whooping cranes downstream in Nebraska.

The third meeting of the committee was in the 1990s, when it considered exempting from the Endangered Species Act multiple timber sales in Oregon and Washington that would likely jeopardize the northern spotted owl.

For Tellico Dam, the committee denied the exception, but Congress later cleared the way for the dam to be completed. For Grayrocks Dam, the committee granted an exemption but required the Missouri Basin Power Project to preserve habitat and manage water to reduce harm to the cranes.

In the case of the northern spotted owl, exemptions were initially granted for timber sales in Oregon but later withdrawn due to legal challenges and procedural violations. No such exemptions were authorized in Washington state.

What happened in the 2026 meeting?

In its March 31, 2026, decision, the committee unanimously approved an exemption from Endangered Species Act requirements for all oil and gas activities associated with the government’s Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Program in the Gulf of Mexico, which the Trump administration has renamed the Gulf of America.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told the committee that the exemption was “a critical matter of national security” because ongoing Endangered Species Act litigation “threatened to halt oil and gas production in the Gulf of America.”

“These legal battles waste critical government resources and make it impossible for energy companies to plan and invest in new projects,” Hegseth told the committee. “When development in the Gulf is chilled, we are prevented from producing the energy we need as a country and as a department.”

Specifically, Hegseth’s request for the exemption pointed to a May 2025 NOAA Fisheries biological opinion that oil industry operations, particularly vessels striking wildlife, could jeopardize the Rice’s whale and other rare species. That opinion and prior ones have been challenged by conservation groups that want more protections and by industries that consider it too restrictive.

Legal experts have voiced concerns over the legitimacy of the God Squad’s actions, questioning the lack of state involvement or public transparency. Environmental groups said they would challenge the committee’s exemption decision in court.

Changing the paradigm

While the common rhetoric often makes it seem like energy and environmental goals are at odds, examples among leading energy and transportation companies have shown otherwise.

At the University of Illinois Chicago’s Energy Resources Center, my colleagues and I find ways conservationists and energy companies can work together, such as through networks like the Rights-of-Way as Habitat Working Group, which focuses on habitat conservation in working landscapes.

Balancing ecological and economic interests is not just a “nice idea” – it’s shown to be good business.

Planning new projects in ways that avoid harm to wildlife and include proactive conservation plans can avoid lawsuits, permit delays, reputational risks and increased costs. Such actions require minimal investment and pay dividends in positive environmental and social results, especially when compared to the tens of millions of dollars spent to lobby for environmental regulation reforms each year.

Companies we work with in the energy and infrastructure sectors are finding that integrating ecological principles and conservation practices into development projects and operations avoids other business interruptions as well.

For example, maintaining green spaces as wildlife habitat can buffer infrastructure from severe weather, erosion or flooding. Restoring or improving habitats can also reduce legal risks from environmental damage.

Programs like the University of Illinois Chicago’s nationwide agreements for monarch butterflies and bumblebees help companies reduce regulatory delays and help conserve endangered and declining species at the same time.

For businesses, this can create positive connections with their employees and the communities where they operate. This, in turn, improves their reputations, which can help reduce project delays and encourage investment.

The Endangered Species Act Committee’s decision could influence more than the future of a few species. It could affect broader actions concerning environmental stewardship, corporate responsibility and federal oversight. By removing protections for wildlife, the committee risks eroding public trust. In reinforcing the energy vs. environment narrative, this decision could hinder efforts to foster conservation in the energy industry.

Instead, the committee of agency leaders could have had a more lasting and positive impact if it had worked to build trust and cooperation among industry, conservation groups and agencies.

This article, originally published March 28, 2026, has been updated with the committee’s decision.

Dan Salas, Director of the Sustainable Landscapes Program, University of Illinois Chicago

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Trump’s “God Squad” pits energy vs. endangered species appeared first on Salon.com.