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 should be remembered after the Trump administration took the unusual step of calling a special committee known as “God’s Team” to ignore one of the most important environmental protection laws, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, to release many activities of the US oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico.

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 six long-term members: 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 should be 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.

What happened at the 2026 meeting?

In its decision of March 31, 2026, the committee unanimously approved the exemption from Endangered Species Act requirements for all oil and gas activities related to the federal Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Gulf of Mexico Program, which the Trump administration has renamed the Gulf of America.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the committee that the release is a “critical national security issue” because the ongoing Endangered Species Act lawsuit “threatens to halt oil and gas production in the U.S. Gulf.”

“These legal battles are wasting valuable government resources and making it impossible for energy companies to design and invest in new projects,” Hegseth told the committee. “When development in the Gulf is cold, we are prevented from generating the energy we need as a country and sector.”

In particular, Hegseth’s request for exemption led to the May 2025 NOAA biological opinion that the operation of the oil industry, especially ships that hit wildlife, could endanger Rice’s whale and other rare species. That and earlier views have been challenged by conservation groups that want more protection and industries that see it as too restrictive.

Legal experts have raised concerns about the legitimacy of the God Squad’s actions, questioning the lack of government involvement or public transparency. Environmental groups said they would challenge the release committee’s decision in court.

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. Such actions require little investment and pay dividends in positive environmental and social outcomes, especially when compared to the tens of millions of dollars spent to advocate for changes in environmental management every year.

The companies we work with in the energy and infrastructure sectors find that integrating environmental regulations and conservation practices into development plans and operations 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.

The Endangered Species Act Committee’s decision could influence the future of more than a few species. It may involve broader actions regarding environmental stewardship, corporate responsibility and government oversight. By removing protections for wildlife, the committee risks destroying public trust. By strengthening energy versus environmental reporting, this decision could hinder efforts to promote conservation in the energy industry.

Instead, the committee of union leaders would have had a lasting and positive impact if it had worked to build trust and cooperation among industry, care groups and organizations.

This article, published on March 28, 2026, has been updated by committee decision.