If you spend any time scrolling through the Federal Register (and let’s be honest, that’s just one of the cool, hip, and happening ways we pass the time here at Southern Fried Science), you will notice an alarming trend. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is widely considered the gold standard of conservation law and it has a near-perfect track record of preventing extinction… until now. At present the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are asleep at the wheel. The agencies aren’t just falling behind; they are actively failing to uphold their statutory duties, leaving hundreds of vulnerable species stranded in administrative purgatory. This isn’t the fault of the majority of those in the agencies; commands are coming from leadership to delay and stall vital work related to the ESA.
The ESA outlines a clear, legally mandated timeline for protecting species. When a petition is filed to list a species as threatened or endangered, the agencies have 90 days to make an initial finding. If there is substantial information, they have 12 months to conduct a status review and decide if listing is warranted. This was by design—it was written this way to promote the rapid designation of protections for species in “jeopardy.”
But now, instead of months, species will be waiting decades.
There is currently a crushing backlog of species that have been deemed “warranted but precluded.” This is bureaucratic code for: “Yes, this animal is sliding toward extinction, but we don’t have the time, money, or political will to deal with it right now.” For many species, this administrative limbo is a death sentence. They remain unprotected while the very threats pushing them to the brink, such as habitat destruction, climate change, and overexploitation, continue unabated.
Ghost listings
When listing decisions take 10 to 20 years, we get what conservationists call “ghost listings.” NMFS and FWS routinely finalize listings or declare critical habitat for species that may already be functionally extinct in the wild. We are essentially conducting autopsies instead of providing emergency medicine.
Agencies frequently cite a lack of funding from Congress to manage their workload. While underfunding is a real and chronic issue, both agencies have also shown a historical aversion to political conflict. Listing a high-profile marine fish or a terrestrial apex predator often draws fire from powerful industrial, agricultural, and commercial fishing lobbies. Rather than bracing for the legal and political fights required to defend biodiversity, agency leadership often drags their feet, delaying decisions until forced to act by environmental lawsuits. They seem far more willing to be sued by always-financially-strapped NGOs than by deep-pocket industry.
The limbo list
When you pull back the curtain on species managed by NMFS, you find a literal warehouse of high-profile marine animals sitting on the “Proposed” or “Awaiting” shelf. These are species where the science already shows that they are in danger, yet they remain trapped in bureaucratic stasis.
Here’s a quick example of marine species currently languishing in the NMFS backlog:
1. Proposed but stalled
These are species where NMFS has actually completed a status review, they have formally agreed that the species is at risk, and have published an official proposal to list them under the ESA. Legally, NMFS is supposed to finalize a listing within one year of proposing it. However, these proposals are currently just sitting on the shelf:
- The sunflower sea star (Pycnopodia helianthoides) was proposed as Threatened way back in 2023. This keystone predator was entirely wiped out across 90% of its range by sea star wasting disease, triggering an ongoing kelp forest collapse along the Pacific coast. Three years later, NMFS still hasn’t finalized its listing.
- NMFS issued a massive blanket proposal in 2024 to list 10 species of giant clams (including the China clam, Devil clam, and the true giant clam) as Endangered or Threatened due to severe overharvesting and reef degradation. However, they still remain unprotected.
- The Southern Africa and Southwest Atlantic distinct population segments of the tope shark (Galeorhinus galeus) were proposed as Threatened in early 2026. They join a long queue of shark populations waiting for heavy-hitting commercial fishing regulations to actually be invoked.
2. Petitions on ice (awaiting 90-day or 12-month findings)
Before a species can even be proposed for a listing, NMFS has to answer public petitions. The law says they have 90 days to issue an initial finding and 12 months to conduct a thorough status review. NMFS routinely misses these deadlines, keeping highly vulnerable species out of the listing system entirely.
- A massive petition to list 41 species of Acropora coral was submitted to NMFS. With rising ocean temperatures causing historic global bleaching events, every single month of delay pushes these reef-building cornerstones closer to regional extinction.
- The deep-water cod-like cusk (Brosme brosme) has been an administrative football for years. A formal petition to list the species was re-logged, but while it awaits agency attention, the species continues to suffer immense pressure from commercial bycatch.
- Petitions to grant protections to the Eastern North Pacific gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) are stuck awaiting mandatory agency reviews while the species experiences severe climate-driven shifts in prey availability and rising mortality rates.
3. Fishy purgatory
Because protecting Pacific salmon and steelhead directly collides with massive infrastructure, logging, and agricultural water rights, NMFS historically drags its feet on listing of salmon species, until forced by a judge. Currently Gulf of Alaska Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) have the worst returns in recorded history and environmental groups have had to threaten aggressive legal action just to force NMFS to issue its basic status findings on these imperiled fish.
By keeping these animals under “review” or at “proposed” status indefinitely, NMFS leadership successfully avoids the legal obligation to designate critical habitat or enforce strict federal protections and consultation requirements that could otherwise halt destructive commercial projects.
Litigation, you are our only hope
This brings us to the most damning indictment of the current state of ESA implementation. In order for anything to happen, NGOs have to sue the government.
Organizations like the Center for Biological Diversity, NRDC, Animal Welfare Institute and Earthjustice spend millions of dollars every year dragging FWS and NMFS to court just to force them to meet their basic, legally mandated deadlines and statutory requirements. We’ve reached a point where the default operational strategy for federal wildlife agencies is “wait for a court order.”
Agency leadership then complains that they are spending too much of their valuable time in court. Opponents of conservation in Congress and industry also falsely try to make out that when NGOs win their court cases, they are getting huge cash settlements and that they are suing as a fund-raising tactic. However, agencies are being sued because their leadership is preventing agency staff from conducting even the most fundamental parts of their jobs and legal obligations. The only money NGOs might see is court costs.
This sue-and-settle cycle is an incredibly inefficient way to run a conservation strategy. It forces agencies to prioritize species based on which stakeholders have the best lawyers and deepest pockets (usually industry), rather than which ecosystems and species are facing imminent collapse.
Escaping purgatory
The Endangered Species Act is a masterpiece of environmental legislation, but if FWS and NMFS leadership continue to treat statutory deadlines and legal obligations as optional suggestions, the ESA will become a paper tiger.
We need to hold both the executive and legislative branches accountable. This means demanding Congress fully fund and staff the listing programs so agency leadership cannot use the “empty pockets” and “understaffed” excuse. But more importantly, it requires leadership within FWS and NMFS to be brave enough to stand up to the politicians and their cabinet secretaries and to enforce the law as written. Extinction doesn’t act on a timeline dictated by bureaucratic inertia and politics.