logo
Trump Officials Ask Court to End Protections for a Strutting, Showy Bird

Trump Officials Ask Court to End Protections for a Strutting, Showy Bird

New York Times08-05-2025

The Trump administration has moved to end federal protections for the lesser prairie chicken, a showy grouse with the misfortune of inhabiting southern and central grasslands long sought-after for agriculture and energy development.
In a court filing on Wednesday, officials said the Fish and Wildlife Service had erred in a Biden-era decision that placed the bird on the endangered species list.
It's the latest in a blur of actions by the White House seeking to weaken or eliminate environmental regulations that constrain President Trump's 'drill, baby, drill' agenda.
And it's the latest twist for a species whose fate has been fought over for three decades.
Lesser prairie chickens — known for the males' quirky courtship displays of stamping, fanning their tail feathers and 'flutter jumping' — have declined from historic estimates of hundreds of thousands or even millions to only about 30,000 today. Habitat loss is the main culprit.
In the filing, in United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, officials said they expected to re-evaluate the bird's status by Nov. 30, 2026.
Although the species would lack federal protections under the Endangered Species Act in the interim, the motion stated that 'at least sixteen different conservation efforts and programs administered by state, federal, and private entities exist that benefit the lesser prairie chicken.'
But conservationists said the Fish and Wildlife Service would be under no obligation to reconsider the species on that timeline and predicted that they would have to sue to make it happen.
'The Trump administration is again capitulating to the fossil fuel industry, ignoring sound science and common sense, and dooming an imperiled species to extinction,' Jason Rylander, a lawyer with the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.
'Removing Endangered Species Act protections is a purely political act that won't stand up in court,' he continued. His group has intervened in the case.
As far back as 1998, federal wildlife officials found that the lesser prairie chicken merited protection, but initially said other species were a higher priority. Later, the bird bounced on and then off the list of threatened and endangered species, caught up in lawsuits.
In 2022, under President Biden, lesser prairie chickens were again protected. That decision divided the species into two distinct populations, categorizing the southern one (in eastern New Mexico and Southwest Texas) as endangered and the northern one (in central and western Kansas, central Oklahoma and the northeast panhandle of Texas) as threatened, a less imperiled finding that still affords some protections.
The petroleum and ranching industries sued in 2023, as did the states of Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma.
Now the Trump Administration is arguing that the Fish and Wildlife Service was mistaken in assessing the species as distinct populations, and that doing so 'taints the very foundation' of the decision to list it.
The leading global scientific authority on the status of species, the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List, classifies the lesser prairie chicken as vulnerable, akin to the U.S. listing of threatened.
Mr. Rylander with the Center for Biological Diversity said he planned to file an opposition to the federal motion in the coming days. The fight over the lesser prairie chicken is taking place as scientists warn that the planet is facing levels of biodiversity loss that are unprecedented in human history.
Temperate grasslands are among the world's most imperiled ecosystems.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Congressional committees demands records from Nashville mayor on immigration enforcement
Congressional committees demands records from Nashville mayor on immigration enforcement

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Congressional committees demands records from Nashville mayor on immigration enforcement

Nashville Mayor Freddie O'Connell requested detailed information about immigrants arrest in the city and what they were charged with. Now, immigration czar Tom Homan wants him investigated. (Photo: John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout) In an escalation by Trump Administration officials and Republican lawmakers, two U.S. House committees have launched an inquiry into the response by Nashville's mayor and local officials to federal immigration enforcement activities. A letter sent Thursday by the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees demands a series of documents from the office of Mayor Freddie O'Connell by June 12. They include documents related to the mayor's executive order requiring city emergency personnel to report interactions with federal immigration officials within 24 hours. The committees are also demanding all communications between city officials and other organizations and individuals regarding federal immigration activities during the month of May. The letter accuses the mayor of actions that 'threaten to chill immigration enforcement in the City of Nashville and Davidson County.' O'Connell, during a regularly scheduled news conference on Friday, said he intends to 'appropriately respond.' 'There will be repercussions' Homeland Security official targets Nashville mayor over immigration 'I am not particularly concerned,' the mayor said in response to a reporter's question about the inquiry. 'We're going to respond appropriately to all inquiries, and we have been guided by a full understanding of state and federal law and we will continue to be,' he said. The letter was sent to O'Connell the same day the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a list of hundreds of U.S. cities, counties and several states that Trump Administration officials accused of 'deliberately and shamefully obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws endangering American communities.' Nashville, along with Shelby County in west Tennessee, was on the list. But in a reversal over the weekend, the list was removed from the agency's website. Reuters reported Sunday that the list was taken down after DHS received pushback from the National Sheriff's Association, which issued a statement noting that local law enforcement had not been consulted before the sanctuary city list was made public and that it 'violated the core principles of trust, cooperation, and partnership with fellow law enforcement.' On Friday, O'Connell held in his hand a copy of Tennessee law barring sanctuary status, a designation that typically limits cooperation between cities and federal immigration officials, noting that Nashville has not engaged in any of the actions barred by the legislation. 'By definition Nashville is not a sanctuary city,' the mayor said. 'We do not, nor have we ever had a policy that violates state law.' 'As we've stated several times in recent weeks, Metro (Nashville) does not have any legal authority as it relates to immigration enforcement and we do not impede federal law enforcement actions,' O'Connell said. 'In fact we regularly partner with state and federal agencies to take violent criminals off our streets. This is the reality.' U.S. border czar: Nashville mayor, a critic of immigration sweeps, now faces investigation O'Connell also noted that both violent and property crimes in Nashville are significantly down from prior years. The mayor's remarks came at the end of a week marked by escalating attacks against him by top federal immigration officials as well as Tennessee Republican Rep. Andy Ogles. During a Memorial Day press conference, Ogles accused O'Connell, a Democrat, of 'aiding and abetting illegal immigration.' Subsequently, White House 'border czar' Tom Homan warned that immigration agents would 'flood the zone' in Nashville seemingly in retaliation for the mayor's perceived political stance against mass immigration detainments. And on Thursday a Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary for public affairs accused O'Connell of 'harboring' immigrants without legal status and 'doxxing' immigration enforcement agents. O'Connell has drawn the ire of Republicans for two actions: during mass immigration stops in Nashville earlier this month, O'Connell issued a revised executive order requiring the city's emergency personnel – and some non-emergency employees – to report any interaction with federal immigration officials within 24 hours. The city then posted a list of those interactions on its web site. Initially the names or partial names of four federal immigration staffers appeared on that list in error, city officials said. The names have since been removed. O'Connell also publicized a fund established by the Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee to assist family members of those detained by immigration authorities. While Trump Administration officials accused O'Connell of using public funds to support immigrants without legal status, the fund operates only with private donations, a foundation spokesperson said. ogles-request-for-docs

Killing the U.S.-Mexico tomato agreement would spell trouble for Texans
Killing the U.S.-Mexico tomato agreement would spell trouble for Texans

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Killing the U.S.-Mexico tomato agreement would spell trouble for Texans

Most Texans probably haven't heard of the Tomato Suspension Agreement. It's not exactly dinner table conversation. Yet this nearly 30-year-old trade agreement, which governs the 4 billion pounds of tomatoes grown every year in Mexico and sold in the United States, is in jeopardy of being terminated unnecessarily by the federal government. If that happens, Texans will feel the impact of this 'tomato tariff' in their grocery bills, and an untold number of Texans could find themselves out of work. Since 1996, the U.S. has had this agreement with Mexico to prevent unfair pricing on imported tomatoes. It's not a free pass. It's a negotiated deal that protects American growers while still allowing for international trade. Now the U.S. Department of Commerce is considering canceling the agreement and placing a 17% duty (a kind of tariff) on all fresh tomatoes coming in from Mexico. If they do, Texas loses. Texas is a major hub for fresh produce — especially from Mexico. Nearly 300,000 U.S. jobs depend on the fresh fruits and vegetables moving through our state. Every day, tons of tomatoes cross the border through Texas ports, destined for grocery stores, restaurants and even food banks. Ending the agreement means tomatoes will get more expensive, and that cost will trickle down to your grocery bill. Just look at Walmart, which spent the last month raising prices on other goods because of tariffs. It's not a far stretch to think a tomato tariff would do the same. And it's not just about what you pay at H-E-B. Many Texas-based companies — trucking, warehousing, banks, insurance companies, staffing agencies, box and material providers — depend on this supply chain. If it gets disrupted, so do the paychecks of Texans who work in and around the fresh produce industry. We support fair trade and American farmers. When Mexico was not making their payments on the water treaty, we demanded America act. But with tomatoes, that's not the case. Mexico has not cheated on the Tomato Suspension Agreement. Nearly 30 years of annual audits and reviews by the U.S. government have shown the agreement protects fair trade and Mexican tomato exporters are following the rules. In fact, the Department of Commerce has not found a single violation in the most recent version of the agreement, and more than 99% of Mexican tomatoes have passed mandatory quality inspections at the border. In addition, research has shown that American-grown tomatoes have benefited from higher prices as a result of the agreement. Terminating this agreement would throw out a system that works. Not to mention Mexico is likely to retaliate with tariffs of its own, further driving up grocery prices for Texans. This isn't just about tomatoes. It's about American jobs, American food prices and American trade relationships that matter to our state. We should maintain and modernize the Tomato Suspension Agreement, not terminate it. Whether you're a farmer, a grocer, a school teacher, a parent buying tomatoes for your family, or someone trying to stretch every dollar, our government should do what's best for Americans — and that's not increasing grocery prices or putting Texans out of work. Dante L. Galeazzi is the president/CEO of the Texas International Produce Association. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Killing the tomato agreement would spell trouble for Texans | Opinion

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store