Published on: Sat, 18 Jul 2026 06:51:33 GMT
Original Story: Trump administration allows killing of species threatened with extinction – The Washington Post

Trump: Extinction’s Just ‘Creative Destruction.’

Alright, folks, gather ’round, because if you thought the world was already going to hell in a handbasket, prepare for a scenic detour through a barren, wildlife-free landscape. Today’s feature presentation: the glorious, unwavering commitment to making things *less* protected, *less* regulated, and frankly, just a whole lot *less*. Specifically, when it comes to things like, you know, species that are actively trying not to vanish from the face of the earth.

The Washington Post, bless their diligent hearts, dropped a little reminder from the archives: the Trump administration, in its infinite wisdom, saw fit to greenlight policies that essentially made it easier to off species already teetering on the brink of extinction. Because why bother with inconvenient things like biodiversity when there’s profit to be made and ‘red tape’ to be shredded?

The Art of the Deal… with Extinction

Let’s not mince words here. We’re talking about a significant rollback, a casual flick of the wrist that kneecapped the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This wasn’t some minor tweak; it was an ideological gutting. Historically, the ESA has been a bipartisan beacon, a genuinely effective piece of legislation that, since its inception in 1973, has been credited with saving hundreds of species from the great beyond. It’s been a legal shield, preventing federal agencies from authorizing projects that would jeopardize endangered or threatened species or their critical habitats. A pretty straightforward concept, really: if it’s dying, maybe don’t poke it with a stick.

But the Trump administration, ever the contrarian, decided that maybe we were being a little *too* precious about, say, the last remaining California condors or that obscure beetle living under a rock. The revisions, enacted in 2019, fundamentally altered how the ESA operated. For starters, they allowed economic factors to be considered when deciding whether to protect a species. Previously, science was supposed to be the sole arbiter. So, if saving a fish costs too much money for a shiny new strip mall, well, tough luck, fishy. They also removed the automatic “threatened” status for species newly listed as endangered, effectively giving them less protection from the get-go. And don’t even get me started on the redefinition of “habitat,” making it harder to protect areas where species *might* live in the future, if, you know, they survive this current onslaught.

Bureaucracy: Nature’s Worst Enemy?

It’s all part of the grand vision, isn’t it? The relentless pursuit of ‘dismantling the bureaucracy.’ In this narrative, environmental protections aren’t safeguards; they’re shackles. They’re cumbersome, inconvenient obstacles to progress, defined almost exclusively as construction, drilling, and resource extraction. Forget that these ‘obstacles’ are often the only thing standing between us and, well, a planet that looks like the surface of Mars. For the former administration, every regulation was a target, every agency a bloated entity ripe for pruning. And endangered species protections? Just another layer of bureaucratic nonsense standing in the way of ‘unleashing American energy’ or whatever catchy phrase was being thrown around that week.

The logic is infuriatingly simple: if the rules are gone, you can’t break them. If the watchdogs are defanged, the wolves can roam free. And if a few charismatic megafauna (or even some less charismatic, but equally vital, insects) have to take one for the team, then that’s just the price of doing business in a deregulated paradise. It’s a race to the bottom, where the ‘bottom’ is literally the bottom of the food chain, and we’re just casually kicking it over.

A Sudden Change of Heart? Or Just a Convenient Memory Lapse?

Now, here’s where the truly delicious irony kicks in. You might think someone who presides over such a wholesale rollback of environmental protections would have a consistent, unwavering disdain for all things feathered, scaled, or furred. But oh, how wrong you’d be. Because our protagonist, Mr. Trump himself, once displayed a surprising, albeit highly self-serving, concern for our avian friends.

Cast your mind back to 2013. Long before the Oval Office beckoned, Trump was locked in a bitter dispute over a proposed offshore wind farm near his golf resort in Aberdeenshire, Scotland. His argument? The turbines, he claimed, were “monsters” that would “spoil the view” from his magnificent links. But wait, there’s more! He also vociferously argued that these wind farms would be “catastrophic” for birds, turning the area into a “graveyard for birds.” Yes, you read that right. The man who, years later, would oversee the weakening of protections for species on the verge of disappearing, was once a staunch defender of birds – specifically, when those birds (and their potential demise via wind turbine) threatened to spoil the scenic vista from his multi-million dollar investment.

The hypocrisy practically hums, doesn’t it? Birds are apparently important when their existence, or lack thereof, directly impacts Trump’s property value or aesthetic preferences. But when it’s just, you know, the *actual* survival of entire species, driven by development approved under his watch, suddenly it’s ‘creative destruction.’ It’s not about conservation; it’s about convenience. It’s not about the environment; it’s about the optics of his personal brand, and perhaps, the bottom line of his favored industries. A true masterclass in selective outrage, if ever there was one.

The Long Game of ‘Creative Destruction’

This isn’t just about a few cute animals, though Lord knows they deserve better. This is about a systemic approach to governance that prioritizes perceived economic growth above all else, often at the expense of long-term ecological stability. The term ‘creative destruction,’ coined by economist Joseph Schumpeter, refers to the incessant product and process innovation by which new production units replace outdated ones. It’s usually applied to markets, not ecosystems. But in this context, it seems to have been twisted into a justification for actively dismantling established protections in the name of ‘progress,’ regardless of the biological cost.

For us elder millennials, who are already struggling to afford a house and questioning why we still pay for streaming services we don’t watch, the idea that we’re actively accelerating the loss of species feels like an extra layer of existential dread. We’re already burdened with climate change, student debt, and the crushing weight of knowing our online dating profile pictures will eventually be used to train AI. Do we *really* need to add “witnessed the last golden-cheeked warbler” to our bingo card?

What’s Next? Dinosaurs Making a Comeback (for Dinner)?

The playbook is pretty clear: identify regulations, declare them burdensome, and then systematically dismantle them. The ESA was just one target. Others have included clean air and water rules, emissions standards, and protections for national monuments. It’s a relentless chipping away at the foundation of environmental governance, all under the guise of streamlining, efficiency, and job creation. The ultimate goal seems to be a landscape where government oversight is minimal, and industries are free to operate with fewer checks and balances. What could possibly go wrong, right?