Katie Britt

On Wednesday, Sen. Katie Britt, R-Alabama, seemed to defend a recent decision to exempt all oil and gas drilling in the Gulf from endangered species laws. Advocates say that decision could drive the Rice’s Whale to extinction.

Britt, however, said that the Rice’s Whale may not actually be in danger.

“I can’t emphasize enough the implications of misclassifying these whales as endangered,” Britt said during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. “The listing created a substantial national security risk, which you and the entire Endangered Species Committee recently highlighted.”

In an exchange with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Britt cited a study published in December that questioned if the Rice’s Whale was a distinct species from the Bryde’s Whale, another great whale that lives in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans.

While the Rice’s Whale was thought to be a population of the Bryde’s Whale, genetic testing confirmed in 2021 that the Rice’s Whale is a unique species, according to the federal government. Britt does not mention this in her testimony.

Britt asked Lutnick if, in light of the new 2025 study, he would consider delisting the Rice’s Whale from the endangered species list until more data is available.

Lutnick agreed, saying that the past science on the whale was “biased.”

“If it is not [a separate species], we need to stop the nonsense of treating something as if it’s endangered, when, of course, it’s plentiful,” Lutnick said during the hearing. “We need the Gulf of America to thrive and succeed. We need the Alabama fishermen to thrive and succeed.”

“The discussion between Sen. Britt and Commerce Secretary Lutnick seemed to push toward getting an outcome they prefer--overturning the science-based designation of Rice’s whales as a distinct species--rather than supporting the scientific process,” said Christian Wagley, coastal organizer for Healthy Gulf, an environmental group. “Sec. Lutnick alleged bias in the research around Rice’s whales without offering any evidence of such.”

Britt said the Bryde’s Whale (pronounced broodus) is plentiful and would not need to be protected.

However, according the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration the Bryde’s Whale is also protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act “wherever found,” as the whale faces many threats to its existence.

The marine mammal act prohibits killing, harassing, hunting, or capturing any marine mammal.

“It is sickening to see politicians and billionaires gleefully discuss eradicating the few remaining Rice’s whales from the face of the earth,” said Brian Segee, an attorney with environmental advocacy group the Center for Biological Diversity. “Even if the Rice’s whale was taxonomically redefined as a subspecies of Bryde’s whales, the Endangered Species Act’s protections extend to both species and subspecies.”

Prior to its distinction as a new species, the Rice’s Whale was called the “Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s Whale” subspecies. That subspecies was listed as endangered. When the distinction was made, the endangered status transferred to the new species, according to the federal government.

Britt’s comments seem to be in defense of a recent ruling from the Endangered Species Committee, also known as the “God Squad.” Last month, the committee unanimously agreed to exempt oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico from endangered species protections.

There are just 51 Rice’s Whales left in existence, scientists estimate. Previously, the National Marine Fisheries Service determined oil and gas drilling would jeopardize the continued existence of the whale and proposed mitigation measures.

However, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth convened the committee to ask for an exemption, arguing that unburdening oil and gas companies from regulations was necessary for “national security.”

“This is not just about gas prices, it’s about our ability to power our military and protect our nation,” Hegseth said at the time. “These legal battles waste critical government resources and make it impossible for energy companies to plan and invest in new projects.”

The exemption applies to all endangered species found in the Gulf, not just the Rice’s Whale.

The decision by the committee was unprecedented—the committee had only convened three times since its inception, and never to consider an exemption under national security grounds.

“It is also important to remember that the “God Squad’s” bogus national security exemption extends to all listed species in the Gulf of Mexico, from Kemp’s ridley sea turtle to the black capped-petrel to the Perdido Key beach mouse," Segee said. The center challenged Hegseth convening the meeting. “We’ll continue to fight that exemption with everything we’ve got.”

Environmental groups, including Healthy Gulf, challenged the “God Squad’s” decision in the District of Columbia appellate court. The American Energy Association, an industry group, challenged the decision in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; those were consolidated in the fifth circuit.

“Policymakers must continue to allow scientists to do their work and generate the ‘best available science’ that federal law requires, without political interference,” Wagley said. “Residents of the Gulf Coast strongly support Rice’s whales as evidenced by the thousands of people who attend festivals and events celebrating the whales and advocating for their protection.”

A third challenge to the decision was filed by energy producer W&T Offshore in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

This isn’t the first time Britt has challenged protections for the Rice’s Whale. In 2023, she led members of Alabama’s congressional delegation to write a letter urging the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration not to finalize “critical habitat” for the Rice’s Whale, arguing there was a “lack of scientific justification” to do so.

The same year, Britt and U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Alabama, sponsored the “Wading Off Hostile Administrative Leader Efforts (WHALE) Act,” which would have prohibited protections for the Rice’s Whale unless the government was able to prove that the protections would not have a negative effect on oil and gas production, military activities, and other Gulf activities.