Take Action for Wildlife: Tell your senators to oppose BAAJA!

The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, or BAAJA, is one of the worst attacks we’ve seen on threatened and endangered wildlife. If passed, this bill would make vast and dangerous changes to the Endangered Species Act, our country’s strongest tool for preventing extinction.

There is clear evidence that the ESA is not the obstacle to development that opponents claim it is. BAAJA would weaken fundamental wildlife protections without addressing the problems that actually slow development.

There is a better way forward. We can improve agency coordination, invest in modernized technology to process permits and give federal agencies the resources they need to make timely decisions without sacrificing wildlife.

The ESA currently requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure federal actions don’t jeopardize an endangered species.

The new permitting legislation would hand Fish and Wildlife Service’s authority over to state agencies. Instead of one national process, we could have a slower, patchwork system of 50 states charged with protecting endangered wildlife without the resources or specialized knowledge they need to make informed decisions.

Congress should be protecting our cherished wildlife, not gutting vital conservation laws, like the ESA, in the name of development. We can build the future America needs without dismantling our commitment to the wildlife and natural heritage we share.

Send a message to your senators today urging them to vote NO on BAAJA!

Message

Dear Senator {contact_data~lastName},

As your constituent and someone who cares deeply about protecting wildlife on the brink of extinction, I strongly urge you to oppose BAAJA (the “Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026”) due to its many provisions to undermine the Endangered Species Act.

The ESA is our most effective tool for preventing extinction. More than 99% of species listed under the ESA have been saved from disappearing forever and hundreds are on the path to recovery. Additionally, the ESA has bipartisan support in Congress and 84% of Americans support the ESA. In fact, earlier this year, the House cancelled a scheduled vote on similar attacks on the ESA because of bipartisan opposition to the bill. At a time when our country should be focusing on addressing the biodiversity crisis, Congress must reject permitting legislation that undermines the ESA and puts the wildlife we cherish at risk.

I am concerned about many changes proposed in the permitting bill, especially those that would let states review the impacts of federal actions on endangered wildlife instead of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has specialized knowledge and decades of experience protecting endangered species. State wildlife agencies are often underfunded and do not have the staff or resources to protect endangered and migratory species from harmful projects. Establishing up to fifty different processes for protecting threatened and endangered wildlife would be incredibly inefficient and ineffective.

The bill would also shut the courthouse doors on communities trying to protect endangered species, by making it harder to challenge projects in court, harder to win those cases, and harder for judges to stop projects. The bill even exempts some projects from even asking the question about whether a project will jeopardize the existence of a threatened or endangered species. Particularly during a time when the courts are one of the only checks on unlawful action, this barrage of attacks must be rejected.

The bill also includes a troubling definition of best available science. Finally, the legislation shortens timelines for endangered species reviews, even though they are almost never the reason projects are delayed.  A study of 88,290 consultations over seven years (all consultations conducted by FWS during that time period) revealed that the FWS only found jeopardy two times, and even in those two instances, the projects were able to proceed after plans were revised. The study also found that formal consultations usually take two months, and that informal consultation usually take two weeks. The ESA did not stop any project during the comprehensive study.

Again, I strongly urge you to vote NO on BAAJA. We can build the future America needs without dismantling our commitment to the wildlife and natural heritage we share.

Sincerely,
{user_data~First Name} {user_data~Last Name}

Contact Information

Title

First Name

Last Name

Email Address

Please send me wildlife updates and calls to action from Defenders. Privacy Policy

Mobile Phone

By checking this box you consent to receive SMS/MMS alerts from Defenders. Message frequency varies, Msg & Data rates may apply. Reply STOP to unsubscribe, HELP for more info. Privacy Policy & Terms

Street

Address 2

Country

Postcode

City

State