PETITION

Delivered to:

Doug Burgum, Secretary of the Interior

Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce

Brian Nesvik, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Eugenio Piñeiro Soler, Director, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Fisheries

We undersigned citizens of the United States bring forth this petition to request you, as appointed servants of the public interest, withdraw proposed changes to regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act. Specifically, these proposed changes are described at pp. 52587-52615 of the November 21, 2025 Federal Register (Docket Numbers FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0039, FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0048, FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0044 and FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0029).

We value the diversity of species existing on the natural landscapes within the borders of our nation. We also recognize the dangers under-regulated development activities pose for species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as well as for other rare species. The proposed changes would lead to increasing destruction of these species’ habitats, violating their inherent rights to exist in abundance, or to simply exist at all.

Decisionmaking must be based on the best available scientific information rather than economic considerations. The existing regulations have successfully prevented extinctions and have not obstructed prosperity. Inflating the weight of the economic considerations while designating Critical Habitat as proposed will, for one example, result in increasing fossil fuel development (‘‘Unleashing American Energy” as per Executive Order 14154), which would harm not just Endangered species but the climate of our entire biosphere. 

The proposal to increase federal discretion for excluding vital habitat areas from Critical Habitat, based upon vague “national security” concerns, is a recipe for repeatedly reducing a species’ critical habitat until it is pushed to the very brink of extinction.

Eliminating automatic protection (the “blanket rule”) for those species listed as Threatened would create a dangerous gap in protection during the time it takes to develop species-specific rules following listing. The agencies often miss deadlines for developing rules. Leaving unaddressed the ongoing impacts that justify ESA-listing would indefinitely worsen the already precarious situation for the species.

Further limiting unoccupied habitat from “Critical Habitat” designation would impede recovery. Species need room to expand their populations or migrate in response to climate change. If we must err, we should err on the side of ESA-listed species.