Noteworthy ocean policies and decisions to be aware of
Warning, this is a long blog post, so grab a cup of your favorite beverage and settle in:
A lot is happening in the conservation and science world as of late and it can all be a bit overwhelming to know what’s going on and what you can do to get involved, so this month I want to tell you about some new and emerging threats facing our oceans, so let’s dive into what’s going on with some of the latest policies and decisions that have been made, what they could mean for our oceans and science as a whole and how you can get involved.
First up, let’s talk about the “God Squad” decision:
The “God Squad” as the media often refers to it is formally called Endangered Species Committee. After the Endangered Species Act was created, a 1978 amendement added a clause to allow for this committee to grant exemptions to the Endangered Species Act in extreme circumstances where the committee feels federal projects or actions must go forward for the good of national interest despite the possibility of the project or action driving one or more species to extinction. Hence why it is colloquially called the “God Squad” because they have the ability to potentially determine whether a species is worth losing. Since the amendment, the “God Squad” has convened three times, once in 1979 in regards to the Grayrocks Dam project that threatened the whooping crane, where the exemption was denied, in 1992 regarding the logging of old-growth forests threatening the northern spotted owl, where the exemption was granted and finally, in March of this year where they exempted oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico citing issues of national security. This year the committee, which was made up of the Secretaries of Defense, Interior, Agriculture, and the Army, along with the administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Council of Economic Advisers, met for 20 minutes before deciding to exempt oil and gas industries from the regulatory protections for species listed on the Endangered Species Act putting numerous endangered marine species living in the Gulf of Mexico at risk. The decision was met with a lot of push-back, particularly from policymakers here in Florida who have consistently vehemently opposed drilling off the coast of Florida. As of right now, the decision stands, but Representative Beyer, alongside 22 cosponsors, introduced the Protect Gulf Life Act (H.R. 8919). The Protect Gulf Life Act would require Gulf oil and gas operations to once again comply with the ESA and prevent a similar sweeping exemption from being reissued for three years.
This is a critical moment for Gulf wildlife. More than two dozen threatened and endangered species, including Kemp's ridley sea turtles, manatees, and the critically endangered Rice's whale call the Gulf home. Scientists estimate that, without mitigation measures, Gulf oil and gas activities could result in more than 38,000 sea turtle deaths over the coming decades. Restoring protections against vessel strikes, seismic blasting, and other industrial impacts could also prevent extinction of the 50 remaining Rice's whales, who live in areas vulnerable to oil and gas development and exploration. Importantly for all wildlife, and coastal communities, the Protect Gulf Life Act would also restore safeguards that help prevent oil spills.
With U.S. oil production at record highs and the Trump administration’s proposal to dramatically expand offshore drilling in the Gulf, rolling back ESA protections is an unnecessary giveaway to the fossil fuel industry that puts vulnerable Gulf wildlife at risk. The legislation defends the ESA, America's most effective law to stop extinction, protects vulnerable Gulf species, and safeguards the ecosystems that support coastal economies and improve quality of life for residents across the Gulf coast.
Please urge Members of Congress to cosponsor the Protect Gulf Life Act and use every tool available to restore protections for vulnerable species in the Gulf.
Continuing on the theme of the Endangered Species Act, let’s talk about the recent changes to the definition of harm:
On July 10, the Trump Administration repealed the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This decision redefines “harm” in the ESA to exclude habitat destruction, eviscerating one of the most foundational protections in endangered species conservation. The new rule will remove the law’s ability to prevent habitat destruction for protected wildlife and allow offshore drilling, mining, or other activities that are harmful to threatened and endangered species. This is a damaging departure from five decades of consistent legal interpretation, science-driven practice, and clear precedent.
Seven former agency heads of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries, appointed by presidents of both parties, joined forces to warn that this change would greenlight habitat destruction and lead to the extinction of some of America’s most iconic wildlife. In a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the former officials urge them to reverse the change, citing their expertise administering the ESA under Republican and Democratic administrations.
“While we have differing opinions on many aspects of implementation, we all agree that the recent reinterpretation of the term "harm" will upend the law and lead to extinction for some of our most iconic wildlife. … The Administration is arguing that you can protect endangered animals without protecting the places they need to survive. Fifty years of science — and common sense — say otherwise.”
A bipartisan effort to undo Trump's harm rule is also mounting on Capitol Hill. In the House, Reps. Fitzpatrick (R-PA) & Quigley (D-IL) have introduced the Safeguarding the Endangered Species Act and Senator Schiff (D-CA) introduced a CRA, both would repeal the rollback. With the rule taking effect on September 14 and active litigation underway, advocates must come together to amplify the widespread, bipartisan support for protecting vulnerable wildlife and the habitats they need to survive and call on the administration to reverse course.
Moving from the ESA to Deep Sea mining:
You may have seen the reel we most recently posted of me talking about Miss Abyss the Dumbo Octopus and her campaign to push back against deep sea mining, but let’s dive deeper into this issue. On July 7, 2025, NOAA proposed revisions to its regulations governing deep seabed mining under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA), specifically for exploration licenses and commercial mining permits for polymetallic nodules in waters outside of U.S. jurisdiction. The proposed rule would allow companies to submit a single application for both exploration and commercial exploitation permits.
Combining exploration and commercial mining permits makes no sense given that seabed mining would take place in the least explored part of the planet. We know that the unique life of the deep ocean is sensitive to disturbance; a key function of exploration is to document baseline environmental conditions against mining’s potential impacts. Regulators and the public will not be able to get a full picture of the potential dangers before NOAA gives companies permission to mine, eliminating their chance to weigh in once all of the data - and risks - are known.
NOAA should also consider that commercial seabed mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction will undermine the international order for the ocean. The U.S. may not be a party to the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS), but it relies upon this treaty to secure the freedom of navigation on which global trade and the U.S. military depend. Under UNCLOS, mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction is regulated by a consensus-based international body called the International Seabed Authority. By accelerating a unilateral permit to mine in these waters, the Trump Administration is eroding the entire system, which gives U.S. competitors an excuse to ignore other treaty provisions and accelerate their own deep-sea mining with limited environmental oversight.
But that’s not the only issue in regards to deep sea mining, on April 24, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at making it easier for companies to mine the deep seafloor, saying it would create "a robust domestic supply for critical minerals." The executive order instructs federal agencies to expedite the process for reviewing and issuing permits for seafloor mining in both U.S. and international waters. On June 25, the Department of the Interior announced that it would fast-track permits for deep-sea mining, potentially with reduced environmental review. Things are moving quickly and there is a clear push for deep sea mining, which could disturb habitats and species in the deep sea we are just barely beginning to understand. I encourage you to get involved with the Miss Abyss campaign against deep sea mining.
Lastly, I want to talk about the Office of Management and Budget proposed changes
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is seeking to dramatically increase political influence over federal science funding by proposing a regulation to shift grant-making decisionmaking power to political appointees. The proposed rule would impact over $1 trillion, conditioning funding on whether grantees and projects conform to “the President’s policy priorities” and allowing active grants to be terminated at any time. This marks a significant departure from the longstanding system in which independent experts serve on peer-review panels, ensuring that decisions are made based on scientific merit rather than partisan priorities.
If adopted, this regulation would substantially weaken traditional peer review, restrict international research collaborations, eliminate funding for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and limit grantee’s ability to publicize scientific or project results– effectively undermining the integrity of the U.S. research enterprise itself.
Federal research funding is critical for investing in science that keeps coastal communities safe and healthy by monitoring ocean conditions, predicting extreme weather, restoring habitats, and maintaining productive fisheries. Millions of Americans rely on data and tools funded by agencies like NOAA and NSF to prepare for and respond to intensifying hurricanes, flooding, harmful algal blooms, and other climate hazards and extreme weather. The blue economy, which contributes $511 billion to the GDP, relies on the technical innovations driven by federal investment and research that helps industries better understand the ocean. This rule threatens these advancements by allowing political appointees to defund critical climate science, withhold essential ocean data, and cancel active research grants based on partisan priorities.
This proposed rule comes as the Trump administration has gutted scientific agencies, cancelled millions of dollars in ocean funding, and undermined scientific integrity across the federal government. Injecting partisanship and bias in the scientific grantmaking process would jeopardize the country's ability to maintain global scientific leadership, drive innovation, and respond effectively to future climate, public health, economic, and national security challenges. The comment period for this proposed rule change was open this summer and there were 496,606 (including one submitted by MISS as an organization and myself as an individual). Now we wait. Because of the overwhelming response of public comments, there is a legal obligation to review the comments and as such the decision has been delayed to December 12, 2026. I will be monitoring developments on this issue closely and I encourage you to as well.
And that’s it, I know it was a lot, but hopefully you feel more informed and empowered about these issues. I encourage you to follow groups like Union of Concerned Scientists, Ocean Defense Initiative and the National Ocean Protection Coalition to stay up to date on these happenings. I find their toolkits informative and helpful and many of the summaries of bills provided here are from them. We will try our best to keep you in the loop and pass things on to you, but we are a small team and encourage you to seek additional viewpoints and sources regarding these issues.