Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Alaska Natives Want the Military to Finally Clean Up Its Toxic Waste

News Feed
Sunday, March 23, 2025

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. In June 1942, Japan’s invasion of the Aleutian islands in Alaska prompted the US military to activate the Alaska territorial guard, an Army reserve made up of volunteers who wanted to help protect the US. So many of the volunteers were from Alaska’s Indigenous peoples—Aleut, Inupiak, Yupik, Tlingit, and many others—that the guard was nicknamed the “Eskimo Scouts.”  When World War II ended and the reserve force ceased operations in 1947, the US approached the Indigenous Yupik people of Alaska with another ask: Could the Air Force set up “listening posts” on the island of Sivuqaq, also known as St. Lawrence Island, to help with the intelligence gathering needed to win the Cold War?   Viola Waghiyi, who is Yupik from Sivuqaq, said the answer was a resounding yes.  “Our grandfathers and fathers volunteered for the Alaska territorial guard,” she said. “We were very patriotic.”  But that trust was abused, Waghiyi said. The US military eventually abandoned its Air Force and Army bases, leaving the land polluted with toxic chemicals such as fuel, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are known as “forever chemicals” because they persist so long in the environment. The contamination was largely due to spilled and leaking fuel from storage tanks and pipes, both above ground and below ground. More chemical waste came from electrical transformers, abandoned metals, and 55-gallon drums.  Now, Waghiyi is the environmental health and justice program director at the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, an organization dedicated to limiting the effects of toxic substances on Alaska’s residents and environment. Last week, the organization filed a complaint to the United Nations special rapporteur on toxics and human rights, in partnership with the University of California-Berkeley Environmental Law Clinic.  Their complaint calls for the United Nations to investigate how military waste on Sivuqaq continues to violate the rights of the people who live there, such as the right to a clean and healthy environment and Indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior, and informed consent to what happens on their land.  “By exposing the Yupik people of Sivuqaq to polluted drinking water sources, air, and soil, and by contaminating local native foods; by causing pervasive human exposure to hazardous chemicals through multiple routes; by toxifying the broader ecosystem; and by not cleaning up contamination sufficiently to protect human health and the environment, the US Air Force and Army Corps of Engineers violated human rights long recognized in international law,” the complaint says.  “We wanted our lands to be turned back in the same condition when they turned over.”  This submission from Alaska is part of a larger, global effort to raise awareness of military toxic waste by the United Nations. The UN special rapporteur on toxics and human rights is collecting public input on military activities and toxic waste until April 1. The information collected will be used in a report presented to the UN General Assembly in October.  The two shuttered bases in Sivuqaq, Alaska, are now classified as “formerly used defense,” or FUD, sites, overseen by the US Army Corps of Engineers, and more than $130 million has been spent to remove the contamination. John Budnick, a spokesman for the US Army Corps of Engineers in Alaska, said the cleanup is considered complete but that the agency is reviewing the site every five years “to ensure the selected remedies continue to be protective of human health and the environment.”  “We have completed the work at Northeast Cape, but additional follow-up actions may result from the monitoring phase of the Formerly Used Defense Sites Program,” he said. The last site visit occurred last July and an updated review report is expected to be released this summer. The federal Environmental Protection Agency similarly concluded in 2013 that an additional EPA cleanup wouldn’t significantly differ from what the Army Corps of Engineers is doing and declined to place the sites on the EPA’s list of hazardous waste cleanup priorities. A 2022 study found that so far, federal cleanup efforts have been inadequate. “High levels of persistent organic pollutants and toxic metals continue to leach from the Northeast Cape FUD site despite large-scale remediation that occurred in the early 2000s,” the authors concluded.  The persisting pollution has garnered the attention of Alaska’s state Department of Environmental Conservation, which oversees the cleanup of contaminated sites. Stephanie Buss, contaminated sites program manager at the agency, said her office has asked the Army Corps of Engineers to do additional cleanup at Northeast Cape. “These active contaminated sites have not met closure requirements,” she said. The second former base, Gambell, was classified as completed but still lacks land use controls, she noted.  “DEC takes community health concerns seriously and will continue to provide oversight of the conditions at its active sites in accordance with the state’s regulatory framework to ensure an appropriate response that protects human health and welfare,” Buss said. That same 2022 study found that 89 percent of the fish around the Northeast Cape base contained mercury exceeding the levels the EPA deemed appropriate for people who rely on subsistence fishing. “All fish sampled near the FUD site exceeded the EPA’s PCB guidelines for cancer risk for unrestricted human consumption,” the researchers further found. Waghiyi said the contamination displaced 130 people, and has left her friends and family with a lasting legacy of illness.  “It’s not a matter of if we’ll get cancer, but when,” Waghiyi said. Her father died of cancer. Her mother had a stillborn child. Waghiyi herself is a cancer survivor and has had three miscarriages.  “We feel that they have turned their back on us,” Waghiyi said of the U.S. military. “We wanted our lands to be turned back in the same condition when they turned over.”  The US military has a long history of contaminating lands and waters through training and battles sites, including on Indigenous lands. Citizens of the Navajo Nation in Arizona and  Yakama Nation in Washington continue to raise concerns about the ongoing effects of military nuclear testing on their lands and health. In the Marshall Islands, fishing around certain atolls is discouraged due to high rates of toxicity due to nuclear testing and other military training. On Guam, chemicals from an active Air Force base have contaminated parts of the islandʻs sole-source aquifer that serves 70 percent of the population. Last year, a federal report found that climate change threatens to unearth even more US military nuclear waste in both the Marshall Islands and Greenland.  In 2021, the Navy in Hawaiʻi poisoned 90,000 people when jet fuel leached from aging, massive underground storage tanks into the drinking water supply after the Navy ignored years of warning to upgrade the tanks or remove the fuel. The federal government spent hundreds of millions of dollars to remove unexploded ordnance from the island of Kahoʻolawe, a former bombing range in Hawaiʻi, but the island is still considered dangerous to walk on because of the risk of more ordnance unearthing due to extensive erosion.  The complaint filed last week by the Alaska Community Action on Toxics calls for the United Nations to write to federal and state agencies and call upon them to honor a 1951 agreement between the government and the Sivuqaq Yupik people that prohibited polluting the land.  The agreement said that the Sivuqaq Tribes would allow the Air Force to construct surveillance sites to spy on the Soviet Union, but they had four conditions, including allowing Indigenous peoples to continue to hunt, fish and trap where desired and preventing outsiders from killing their game. Finally, the agreement said that “any refuse or garbage will not be dumped in streams or near the beach within the proposed area.”  “The import of the agreement was clear: The military must not despoil the island; must protect the resources critical to Indigenous Yupik inhabitants’ sustenance; and must leave the island in the condition they found it, which ensured their health and well-being,” the Alaska Community Action on Toxics wrote in their complaint.  “This is a burden we didn’t create,” Waghiyi said.

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. In June 1942, Japan’s invasion of the Aleutian islands in Alaska prompted the US military to activate the Alaska territorial guard, an Army reserve made up of volunteers who wanted to help protect the US. So many of the volunteers […]

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

In June 1942, Japan’s invasion of the Aleutian islands in Alaska prompted the US military to activate the Alaska territorial guard, an Army reserve made up of volunteers who wanted to help protect the US. So many of the volunteers were from Alaska’s Indigenous peoples—Aleut, Inupiak, Yupik, Tlingit, and many others—that the guard was nicknamed the “Eskimo Scouts.” 

When World War II ended and the reserve force ceased operations in 1947, the US approached the Indigenous Yupik people of Alaska with another ask: Could the Air Force set up “listening posts” on the island of Sivuqaq, also known as St. Lawrence Island, to help with the intelligence gathering needed to win the Cold War?  

Viola Waghiyi, who is Yupik from Sivuqaq, said the answer was a resounding yes.  “Our grandfathers and fathers volunteered for the Alaska territorial guard,” she said. “We were very patriotic.” 

But that trust was abused, Waghiyi said. The US military eventually abandoned its Air Force and Army bases, leaving the land polluted with toxic chemicals such as fuel, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are known as “forever chemicals” because they persist so long in the environment. The contamination was largely due to spilled and leaking fuel from storage tanks and pipes, both above ground and below ground. More chemical waste came from electrical transformers, abandoned metals, and 55-gallon drums. 

Now, Waghiyi is the environmental health and justice program director at the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, an organization dedicated to limiting the effects of toxic substances on Alaska’s residents and environment. Last week, the organization filed a complaint to the United Nations special rapporteur on toxics and human rights, in partnership with the University of California-Berkeley Environmental Law Clinic. 

Their complaint calls for the United Nations to investigate how military waste on Sivuqaq continues to violate the rights of the people who live there, such as the right to a clean and healthy environment and Indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior, and informed consent to what happens on their land. 

“By exposing the Yupik people of Sivuqaq to polluted drinking water sources, air, and soil, and by contaminating local native foods; by causing pervasive human exposure to hazardous chemicals through multiple routes; by toxifying the broader ecosystem; and by not cleaning up contamination sufficiently to protect human health and the environment, the US Air Force and Army Corps of Engineers violated human rights long recognized in international law,” the complaint says. 

“We wanted our lands to be turned back in the same condition when they turned over.” 

This submission from Alaska is part of a larger, global effort to raise awareness of military toxic waste by the United Nations. The UN special rapporteur on toxics and human rights is collecting public input on military activities and toxic waste until April 1. The information collected will be used in a report presented to the UN General Assembly in October. 

The two shuttered bases in Sivuqaq, Alaska, are now classified as “formerly used defense,” or FUD, sites, overseen by the US Army Corps of Engineers, and more than $130 million has been spent to remove the contamination. John Budnick, a spokesman for the US Army Corps of Engineers in Alaska, said the cleanup is considered complete but that the agency is reviewing the site every five years “to ensure the selected remedies continue to be protective of human health and the environment.” 

“We have completed the work at Northeast Cape, but additional follow-up actions may result from the monitoring phase of the Formerly Used Defense Sites Program,” he said. The last site visit occurred last July and an updated review report is expected to be released this summer.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency similarly concluded in 2013 that an additional EPA cleanup wouldn’t significantly differ from what the Army Corps of Engineers is doing and declined to place the sites on the EPA’s list of hazardous waste cleanup priorities.

A 2022 study found that so far, federal cleanup efforts have been inadequate. “High levels of persistent organic pollutants and toxic metals continue to leach from the Northeast Cape FUD site despite large-scale remediation that occurred in the early 2000s,” the authors concluded

The persisting pollution has garnered the attention of Alaska’s state Department of Environmental Conservation, which oversees the cleanup of contaminated sites. Stephanie Buss, contaminated sites program manager at the agency, said her office has asked the Army Corps of Engineers to do additional cleanup at Northeast Cape.

“These active contaminated sites have not met closure requirements,” she said. The second former base, Gambell, was classified as completed but still lacks land use controls, she noted. 

“DEC takes community health concerns seriously and will continue to provide oversight of the conditions at its active sites in accordance with the state’s regulatory framework to ensure an appropriate response that protects human health and welfare,” Buss said.

That same 2022 study found that 89 percent of the fish around the Northeast Cape base contained mercury exceeding the levels the EPA deemed appropriate for people who rely on subsistence fishing. “All fish sampled near the FUD site exceeded the EPA’s PCB guidelines for cancer risk for unrestricted human consumption,” the researchers further found. Waghiyi said the contamination displaced 130 people, and has left her friends and family with a lasting legacy of illness. 

“It’s not a matter of if we’ll get cancer, but when,” Waghiyi said. Her father died of cancer. Her mother had a stillborn child. Waghiyi herself is a cancer survivor and has had three miscarriages. 

“We feel that they have turned their back on us,” Waghiyi said of the U.S. military. “We wanted our lands to be turned back in the same condition when they turned over.” 

The US military has a long history of contaminating lands and waters through training and battles sites, including on Indigenous lands. Citizens of the Navajo Nation in Arizona and  Yakama Nation in Washington continue to raise concerns about the ongoing effects of military nuclear testing on their lands and health.

In the Marshall Islands, fishing around certain atolls is discouraged due to high rates of toxicity due to nuclear testing and other military training. On Guam, chemicals from an active Air Force base have contaminated parts of the islandʻs sole-source aquifer that serves 70 percent of the population. Last year, a federal report found that climate change threatens to unearth even more US military nuclear waste in both the Marshall Islands and Greenland. 

In 2021, the Navy in Hawaiʻi poisoned 90,000 people when jet fuel leached from aging, massive underground storage tanks into the drinking water supply after the Navy ignored years of warning to upgrade the tanks or remove the fuel. The federal government spent hundreds of millions of dollars to remove unexploded ordnance from the island of Kahoʻolawe, a former bombing range in Hawaiʻi, but the island is still considered dangerous to walk on because of the risk of more ordnance unearthing due to extensive erosion. 

The complaint filed last week by the Alaska Community Action on Toxics calls for the United Nations to write to federal and state agencies and call upon them to honor a 1951 agreement between the government and the Sivuqaq Yupik people that prohibited polluting the land. 

The agreement said that the Sivuqaq Tribes would allow the Air Force to construct surveillance sites to spy on the Soviet Union, but they had four conditions, including allowing Indigenous peoples to continue to hunt, fish and trap where desired and preventing outsiders from killing their game. Finally, the agreement said that “any refuse or garbage will not be dumped in streams or near the beach within the proposed area.” 

“The import of the agreement was clear: The military must not despoil the island; must protect the resources critical to Indigenous Yupik inhabitants’ sustenance; and must leave the island in the condition they found it, which ensured their health and well-being,” the Alaska Community Action on Toxics wrote in their complaint. 

“This is a burden we didn’t create,” Waghiyi said.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Zeldin says he can 'absolutely' assure public EPA deregulation efforts won’t harm environment

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin said he can “absolutely” assure the public that the various deregulation efforts undergone by the agency will not harm the environment. Zeldin joined CBS News’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, where he was asked if he could ensure the deregulation wouldn’t have an adverse impact. “Absolutely,” he replied....

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin said he can “absolutely” assure the public that the various deregulation efforts undergone by the agency will not harm the environment. Zeldin joined CBS News’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, where he was asked if he could ensure the deregulation wouldn’t have an adverse impact. “Absolutely,” he replied. “We have to both protect the environment and grow the economy.” Zeldin argued that it’s what the American people are demanding out of the Trump administration. He criticized Biden-era regulations that were “targeting entire industries.” “When the American public went to vote last November, they were talking about economic concerns, about struggling to make ends meet. That includes the cost of being able to heat their home,” he said. “The choice of whether or not to be able to heat their home or fill up their fridge with groceries or afford prescription medication.” Zeldin’s remarks come about a month after the Trump administration unveiled a list of climate and pollution regulations they were looking to dismantle. Under the reversed regulations are some of the Biden administration’s most championed measures, including increasing electric vehicles and quickly closing coal mines. The Trump administration said it was considering rolling back regulations on the neurotoxic mercury from power plans and general air pollution limits for soot. It will also reconsider that climate change poses a threat to the public, laying regulatory groundwork for future climate action. The agency also indicated that it would be closing offices dedicated to fighting pollution in underserved and minority communities. Zeldin said last month that the deregulation efforts would make it easier for Americans to buy a car and heat their homes. Environmentalists have sounded the alarm over the administration’s plans, but Zeldin remained confident that the public and environment would not be negatively impacted. Zeldin noted that there will be a process for public comment and he encourages the public to “weigh in” when they have that opportunity. “I have a zero tolerance for any waste and abuse. It is my duty to ensure that I’m an exceptional steward of tax dollars,” Zeldin later said.

Tackling Climate Change Must Be Job Number One

This Earth Day, on April 22, you can exercise your power. The wellbeing of our planet and its people is at stake.

Amid the historic and sweeping cuts to federal agencies and programs being carried out by the Trump Administration, one truth has been overlooked: If we’re serious about cutting waste and protecting public funds, we must confront climate change head-on. 2024 was a disaster for the planet and its people. According to NASA, it was the warmest year since temperatures began being recorded in 1880. In the United States alone there were twenty-seven climate and weather events that resulted in at least a billion dollars in damages—second only to 2023, with twenty-eight such events.  These events—wildfires, floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes—are becoming the norm, and they’re financially devastating.  In January, tens of thousands of acres and more than 16,000 structures burned in southern California. Last month, more than 150 tornadoes tore across the central and southeastern United States, and, this month, historic floods submerged parts of the Midwest and South. In the parts of the United States at higher risk for climate-related extreme weather events, insurance claims are increasing in cost and frequency. Not surprisingly, these high-risk areas are also now seeing the highest increase in cancellations for failure to pay premiums and nonrenewals by the insurance companies. Without insurance, homeowners may not be able to rebuild when disaster strikes. And climate change isn’t the only escalating crisis. The world is also drowning in plastic. On September 5, 2024—Plastic Overshoot Day—the world exceeded its capacity to manage plastic waste. An estimated 220 million tons of plastic are projected to be produced this year alone, and 66 percent of people live in areas where plastic waste exceeds waste management capacity. Meanwhile, new research shows just how dangerous plastics are to human health. Microplastics have been found in human brains, and the World Wildlife Fund estimates that we may be ingesting up to five grams of plastic each week—the weight of a credit card. Plastics are now linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, impaired fertility, and cognitive development issues. Wildlife, too, is suffering from entanglement, starvation, and habitat loss. Here’s the hopeful part: We already have the tools and the power to change this. EARTHDAY.ORG, the network created by the original organizers of the first Earth Day in 1970, is still leading the charge with our campaign, “Our Power, Our Planet.” The goal is to help individuals, cities, and communities act on the environmental challenges of today. The economic upside of environmental action is massive. New solutions to our current environmental crisis rest in the hands of the people. This Earth Day, on April 22, you can exercise your power. Demonstrate to our leaders in government and business that we are still here, we are a witness to their actions, and we will hold them accountable to do right by our planet and its people.  As consumers, we can choose plastic-free products and demand a reduction and transition in the use of plastics from businesses, while at the same time pressuring government leaders to reduce plastic production globally to end the use of toxic ingredients and to improve waste management systems. We have the collective power not only to protect our planet but also to improve lives and livelihoods. The link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is now scientifically indisputable. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, 90 percent of global electricity can and should come from renewable sources by 2050. The transition also promises cleaner air, up to thirty million new jobs, and stronger energy independence. Transitioning to clean energy, reducing plastic waste, and increasing resilience to extreme weather are among the most fiscally responsible actions governments can take. This Earth Day, we must recognize that efficiency isn’t just about cutting—it’s about investing in solutions that protect people and our infrastructure. True government efficiency means reducing risk in order to cut costs—not paying billions each year to clean up after preventable disasters. This column was produced for Progressive Perspectives, a project of The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service.

Australia opposition leader clarifies he believes in climate change after debate

Peter Dutton is facing outrage after comments he made on climate change during an election debate.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton has clarified he believes in climate change after facing backlash for comments made during an election debate on Wednesday night.Dutton and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese were asked about the increasing impact of climate change, to which Dutton replied he would "let scientists and others pass that judgment".He had previously said that flooding and natural disasters were "part of the history of our state of this country". The comments generated outrage from climate groups and mockery from Albanese."I believe in climate change, and that it is a reality" Dutton said while campaigning on Monday. During Wednesday's debate, Dutton responded to the moderator's question on whether flooding and natural disasters were getting worse by saying, "I don't know because I'm not a scientist". "I can't tell you whether the temperature has risen in Thargomindah because of climate change or the water levels are up," he added.Meanwhile Albanese, who had said Dutton's words showed "no acceptance of the science of climate change" continued mocking his opponent on Thursday, asking "does he believe in gravity?" Environmental organisations have reacted to Dutton's debate remarks with dismay.Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie told the Guardian "it's outrageous for a senior political leader to be so out of touch that they claim they "don't know" the risks Australians are facing."A report from the non-profit released earlier this month stated one in 23 properties across the country were found to be at high risk from climate change.Australian Conservation Foundation Chief Executive Kelly O'Shanassy called Dutton's words "a serious concern" in an interview with the Canberra Times, adding that "the next parliament is the last parliament that can get Australia's massive contribution to climate change under control."Albanese was also questioned on his climate policy during the debate, though for different reasons. The prime minister has championed renewable energy throughout his time in office, but has faced backlash for rising power bills.Asked when fees would fall, the prime minister did not directly reply. Instead, he stressed renewables were the "cheapest form of power".In March, Labor announced it would extend a relief system for the bills, providing a further automatic $150AUD ($95;£72) rebate to households and small businesses. The hour-long debate also saw the two party leaders pressed on other hot button issues for Australia including housing and foreign policy, in particular Australia's relationship to the US.

Ohio grid disparities leave some areas with older, outage-prone equipment

Ohio consumer and environmental advocates are calling on state regulators to address disparities within FirstEnergy’s grid after a recent report found disadvantaged communities are more likely to rely on older, more outage-prone equipment. Areas defined as disadvantaged under the Biden administration’s Climate and…

Ohio consumer and environmental advocates are calling on state regulators to address disparities within FirstEnergy’s grid after a recent report found disadvantaged communities are more likely to rely on older, more outage-prone equipment. Areas defined as disadvantaged under the Biden administration’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool were twice as likely to have low-voltage circuits compared to other parts of FirstEnergy’s Ohio territory, according to the study by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. Equipment was also generally older and had less capacity for normal and overload situations. The results reflect historical patterns of underinvestment in disadvantaged communities, the report says, but the full scope of the problem — including across Ohio’s other utilities — is unclear due to the lack of information from utilities and regulators. “The public availability of any utility data is very, very limited in Ohio,” said report author Shay Banton, a regulatory program engineer and energy justice policy advocate for the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. The Ohio Environmental Council submitted the report as part of FirstEnergy’s pending rate case before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and is asking regulators to address the topic in an evidentiary hearing set for May 5. The state of the local grid matters when it comes to the reliability of customers’ electric service, their ability to add distributed renewable energy resources like rooftop solar, and a community’s potential to attract business investments that could improve its economic conditions. Regulated electric utilities file reliability reports each spring that focus on two commonly used metrics. The system average interruption frequency index, or SAIFI, shows how many outages occurred per customer. The customer average interruption duration index, or CAIDI, measures the average length of time for restoring service to customers who lose power. The annual reports also list factors involved in outages, with breakouts for transmission-related service problems and major events. Major events such as severe weather are considered statistical outliers that don’t count for calculating whether utilities meet their company-specific standards for CAIDI and SAIFI. While weather accounted for the majority of time Ohioans went without power last year, equipment failures also triggered thousands of outages. For the ninth year in a row, at least one Ohio utility company failed to meet reliability standards, reports filed this month show. Both AEP Ohio and FirstEnergy’s Toledo Edison missed their marks for the average time before power is restored for customers who experience outages. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio also collects data on the worst-performing circuits. Individual circuits serve anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand customers. However, the state doesn’t post these reports online or disclose the circuit’s exact locations, which could be used to show whether they are concentrated in disadvantaged communities. The SAIFI and CAIDI metrics used by state regulators did not show significant disparities between disadvantaged neighborhoods and other areas in FirstEnergy’s territory. But Banton said those reliability metrics rely on averages for large groups, which can obscure disparities. They said that utilities should also be required to publicly report the number of customers experiencing frequent service interruptions and the number of customers who faced long outages. Utilities in Ohio tend to be reactive in dealing with circuit problems, Banton said. Communities can face longer outages if utilities wait for equipment to fail before replacing it. Instead, Banton wants utilities’ capital investments to address current disparities and then prevent them from recurring in the future.

Proposed Rule Change on Endangered Species Triggers Alarm for Environmentalists

The Trump administration plans to rewrite part of the Endangered Species Act that prohibits harming the habitats of endangered and threatened species

The Trump administration plans to eliminate habitat protections for endangered and threatened species in a move environmentalists say would lead to the extinction of critically endangered species due to logging, mining, development and other activities.At issue is a longstanding definition of “harm” in the Endangered Species Act, which has included altering or destroying the places those species live. Habitat destruction is the biggest cause of extinction, said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service said in a proposed rule issued Wednesday that habitat modification should not be considered harm because it's not the same as intentionally targeting a species, called “take.” Environmentalists argue that the definition of “take,” though, has always included actions that harm species, and the definition of “harm” has been upheld by the Supreme Court.The proposed rule “cuts the heart out of the Endangered Species Act,” said Greenwald. “If (you) say harm doesn’t mean significant habitat degradation or modification, then it really leaves endangered species out in the cold.”For example, he said spotted owls and Florida panthers both are protected because the current rule forbids habitat destruction. But if the new rule is adopted, someone who logs in a forest or builds a development would be unimpeded as long as they could say they didn't intend to harm an endangered species, he said.The proposed rule was expected to be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, kicking off a 30-day public comment period.A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokeswoman referred The Associated Press to the Department of Interior, which declined to comment.Environmental groups will challenge the rule in court if it is adopted, said Drew Caputo, an attorney at Earthjustice.He said the proposal “threatens a half-century of progress in protecting and restoring endangered species,” including bald eagles, gray wolves, Florida manatees and humpback whales. He said that's because the current rule “recognizes the common-sense concept that destroying a forest, beach, river, or wetland that a species relies on for survival constitutes harm to that species.”The question is whether the Trump administration is entitled to repeal a rule that was upheld specifically by the Supreme Court and therefore subject to precedent, said Patrick Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School who has handled endangered species cases.Because of the current definition of harm, “many, many millions of acres of land has been conserved” to help keep species alive, he said.The issue is of particular concern in Hawaii, which has more endangered species than any other state — 40% of the nation’s federally listed threatened and endangered species — even though it has less than 1% of the land area, according to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Birds are among the most vulnerable. Since humans arrived, 71 birds have gone extinct, according to the state Department of Land and Natural Resources. Thirty-one of the 42 remaining endemic birds are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the department said and ten of these haven’t been seen in decades.Associated Press reporter Audrey McAvoy in Hawaii contributed to this report.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.