Trump’s ‘God team’ is wreaking havoc on endangered species, but it’s the wrong choice – protecting wildlife can be good for business.

There’s a vexing debate in US politics that goes something like this: Would you rather have abundant and cheap energy or a clean, healthy planet where wildlife can thrive?

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

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

That’s important to remember as the Trump administration prepares to convene, for the first time in more than 30 years, a special committee known as the “God Panel” with the power to destroy one of the most important environmental protection laws: the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

What is God’s team?

The Endangered Species Act requires government agencies to avoid any action that may endanger the continued existence of any species listed under the act. That includes federal permits for development, mining, quarrying or logging.

By law, companies may be required to take steps to avoid harming protected species. Those measures can be frustrating as they add delays and costs to already expensive development projects.

Early in the law’s history, Congress amended it to include an exemption. It allowed for the creation of the Endangered Species Act Committee, made up of heads of government agencies, which would give leeway to this ban on government actions deemed to endanger the extinction of listed species.

That committee – God Squad – includes seven members, and the election can only be successful if five or more members of the committee agree. The six permanent members are the secretaries of the interior, agriculture and the Army; the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, and the managers of the Center for Environmental Protection and the National Management of the Sea and Space. The seventh member of the committee is a person elected from the concerned district.

Unusual actions of the committee in the past

God Squad meetings are so rare that the committee has only met three times in its existence.

The committee’s authority is limited to very rare cases where there are no “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to avoid endangering a listed species or destroying the species’ critical habitat.

The committee’s first and most notable case was in 1979. It involved the snail darter, a small, endangered fish whose habitat would have been harmed by the proposed Tellico Dam in Tennessee. At the same time, the committee met again to review a request for a waiver related to water management at Grayrocks Reservoir in Wyoming and its effects on endangered wyoping cranes in the lower reaches of the Nebraska River.

The committee’s third meeting was in the 1990s, when it considered an exemption from the Endangered Species Act for large timber sales in Oregon and Washington that could endanger the northern owl.

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

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

Why is it coming together now?

The official notice says the meeting is “regarding exemptions under the Endangered Species Act” for oil and gas activities.

In a court document responding to the lawsuit filed by the environmental group of the Center for Biological Diversity, the government wrote that the March 31 meeting was called because “the Secretary of War found it necessary for reasons of national security to exempt all ESA requirements in the Gulf of America for oil and gas exploration and development” related to the Outer Continental Shelf Program.

That probably means NOAA Fisheries’ May 2025 natural opinion. That review found that oil industry activities, particularly ships that hit wildlife, could endanger Rice’s whale and other rare species.

The committee may consider an exemption to the requirements of that biological opinion, which is being challenged by both conservation groups that want more protection and industries that consider it too restrictive.

Convening the committee also follows President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order declaring a “national emergency.” That executive order directs the Endangered Species Act Committee to “identify disruptions to domestic energy infrastructure particularly resulting from implementation of the ESA.”

Changing the paradigm

Although common language often makes it seem that energy and environmental goals are incompatible, examples among leading energy and transportation companies have shown otherwise.

At the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Energy Resources Center, my colleagues and I are finding ways conservationists and energy companies can work together, such as networks such as the Rights of Way Habitat Working Group, which focuses on habitat conservation in active areas.

Balancing environmental and economic interests is not just a “good idea” – it is proven to be good business.

Planning new projects in ways that avoid harm to wildlife and incorporate urgent conservation plans can avoid litigation, permit delays, reputational risks and additional costs.

The companies we work with in the energy and infrastructure sectors find that integrating environmental regulations with sustainability plans and practices avoids further business obstacles.

For example, preserving green space as wildlife habitat can protect buildings from extreme weather, erosion or flooding. Restoring or improving habitats can also reduce legal risks caused by environmental damage.

Programs like the University of Illinois at Chicago’s statewide 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 better relationships with their employees and the communities in which they work. This, in turn, improves their reputation, which can help reduce project delays and encourage investment.

What happens when the Endangered Species Act Committee meets can influence the future of more than a few species. It may involve broader actions regarding environmental stewardship, corporate responsibility and government oversight.

If the committee focuses solely on removing protections for wildlife, it could undermine public trust and could hinder efforts to promote conservation in the energy industry. If instead the committee considers how to increase cooperation among industry, care groups and federal agencies, it can have positive and lasting results.