Congress is considering sweeping changes to federal environmental laws that could have lasting consequences for America's endangered wildlife. The Senate's Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) promises to accelerate development of energy projects, data centers and other infrastructure. Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund (DAF) opposes the legislation because it would weaken important protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other environmental laws without demonstrating that those safeguards are no longer needed or are responsible for permitting delays.
Introduced on September 30, 2026, BAAJA (S. 5653) is a Senate bill intended to speed approvals for energy, transportation, AI and other infrastructure projects.
Supporters argue that the legislation would help America build needed infrastructure, create jobs and lower energy costs. Those are important objectives. But the bill also eliminates longstanding protections for endangered wildlife – with no improvement to the project approval process. In fact, the poorly written changes to endangered species reviews will likely slow them down.
BAAJA would allow states to take over endangered species consultations currently handled by federal wildlife experts.
Instead of one fast, reliable federal approval process, project and wildlife proponents could be looking at a different process and agency in every state. This could create inconsistent or weaker protections across state lines, and additional administrative burdens for states without adequate staffing or expertise.
Wildlife does not recognize political boundaries. Sea turtles, migratory birds and other species move across jurisdictions, making consistent national protections particularly important.
The legislation would completely exempt certain highway projects from endangered species requirements and establish additional exemptions for major water permits.
These changes could allow projects with significant consequences for wildlife habitat to proceed without any real review of their impact to endangered wildlife or fish.
For Florida panthers, highways can fragment habitat and increase the risk of deadly vehicle collisions. Protecting connected landscapes is essential to the species' survival and recovery.
BAAJA would also constrain how scientific information is considered in endangered species decisions and impose additional restrictions on certain legal challenges.
DAF believes these provisions could weaken scientific review and make it harder to hold federal agencies accountable for decisions that threaten imperiled wildlife.
When a federal agency approves, funds or undertakes a project that could affect endangered wildlife, the law requires it to consult with federal wildlife experts.
BAAJA would shorten the time available for certain reviews, reducing existing deadlines from 90 to 60 days for informal consultation and from 150 to 100 days for formal consultation.
DAF is concerned that these compressed timelines could leave agencies with insufficient time to evaluate threats, consider scientific evidence and identify ways to reduce harm.
Evidence suggests that ESA consultation is not the obstacle to infrastructure development that proponents of these changes suggest.
A peer-reviewed study examined 88,290 endangered species consultations conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service between 2008 and 2015. Researchers found no projects that were stopped or significantly delayed by the consultation process.
More than 90% of consultations were informal, with a median completion time of approximately two weeks. Formal consultations had a median duration of approximately two months.
The consultation process is designed to identify potential conflicts early and help agencies find solutions that allow projects to proceed while protecting endangered wildlife.
Weakening that system could sacrifice meaningful safeguards without resolving the underlying causes of permitting delays.
America needs modern infrastructure, affordable energy and a permitting system that works efficiently. It also needs healthy ecosystems and strong protections for wildlife already struggling to survive.
These priorities are not mutually exclusive.
BAAJA would make consequential changes to the ESA while offering no benefits for project approvals. DAF believes the legislation places too much of the burden of accelerating infrastructure permits on endangered wildlife and the safeguards designed to protect them.
For these reasons, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund opposes BAAJA and its proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act.
Congress is considering decisions that could shape the future of endangered wildlife protections for generations and you need to make your voice heard.
Tell Your Senators to VOTE NO on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (S.5653)