Trump and Musk's DOGE ‘functionally destroying' historic Yellowstone grizzly science team
A dismayed Chris Servheen is raising the alarm about what's become of federal scientists who have kept watch over the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem's grizzly bear population for the last 55 years.
The group of research biologists and technicians, known as the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, are being hamstrung at best and arguably dismantled, he told WyoFile. For decades, until his retirement in 2016, Sevheen worked closely with the study team while coordinating grizzly bear recovery for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
'It's functionally destroying the organization,' Servheen said. 'The study team has been in place since 1970 — over 50 years of work and experience and knowledge. It's going to just disappear and die.'
Servheen's perplexed about what the Trump administration has to gain.
'How could anybody be so negligent and vile that they're trying to destroy something that has brought grizzly bears back from the edge of extinction?' he said. 'Why would you do that? It's just so destructive.'
Led by Elon Musk, the Department of Government Efficiency's dismantling started with a hiring freeze. Longtime supervisory wildlife biologist Mark Haroldson retired, and his position is not being filled, according to Servheen. Then, the team's longtime leader, Frank van Manen, announced an earlier-than-desired retirement.
'He didn't want to leave,' Servheen said of van Manen, who declined to comment.
According to Servheen, van Manen's departure was related to the federal government's ongoing upheaval.
'They're putting fear into people,' Servheen said. 'That's basically evil, to do that to hard-working people who have been civil servants for decades.'
The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team is part of the U.S. Geological Survey, and its website lists four other employees. Three are technicians, which are often seasonal, entry-level employees. The remaining staff biologist has been in the job about three years.
Although located in Bozeman, many of the federal facility's researchers do work in Wyoming.
'They do all kinds of other stuff: brucellosis and chronic wasting disease and aquatic species,' Servheen said. 'It's a huge science center.'
The planned closure has elicited protests. According to Yellowstonian.org, 42 retired or active biologists petitioned Montana's congressional delegation to use their influence to 'protect (the science center) and its employees from these unwarranted attacks by DOGE.'
Federal offices located in Wyoming have not escaped the closures. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's tribal-focused Lander conservation office and a USGS Cheyenne water science station are among those that have been marked for the chopping block.
WyoFile could not officially confirm impacts to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. Federal agencies under the Trump administration have declined or not responded to WyoFile's requests for more information on downsizing and office closures. An inquiry to a USGS public affairs officer on Thursday yielded no information about the matter.
The Center for Biological Diversity has been pressing the federal agency for details as well. On Thursday, the environmental advocacy organization publicized a Freedom of Information Act request to gain more insight into the future of the federal grizzly team.
Both recently departed veteran study team members — van Manen and Haroldson — are staying engaged in grizzly science in pro-bono emeritus roles, according to a source familiar with the situation.
Nevertheless, Servheen worries that the hit to the science team could trickle down to the grizzly population — estimated at 1,000 or so bears in the Greater Yellowstone — that it's charged with studying.
During the decades, federal researchers have played a pivotal role in improving understanding of the region's bruins, including completing studies that have helped make the case that grizzly bears are fully recovered and no longer require Endangered Species Act protection. They've also amassed mortality and other demographic datasets and compiled an annual report.
'The foundation of Yellowstone grizzly bear recovery has been built on science,' Servheen said. 'Removing that science eliminates our ability to maintain Yellowstone grizzly bears.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
17 hours ago
- Scientific American
Strong Support for NASA and Project Artemis Will Advance the U.S.
During President Trump's first term in office, he signed Space Policy Directive 1, signaling the administration's desire to bring American astronauts back to the moon. This directive, and similar ones, later became Project Artemis, the lunar campaign with broader ambition to get the U.S. on Mars. But will we get to the moon, not to mention Mars? As the space race against China barrels forward, the White House first proposed $6 billion in total cuts to NASA funding, a roughly 24 percent reduction that experts said would be the largest single-year cut to agency funding in history. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. But in the aftermath of President Trump signing the ' One Big Beautiful Bill,' which did reintegrate certain funds for Project Artemis, Congressional appropriations committees have continued to push back against the administration's myriad cuts to NASA, which for the space agency's science unit alone was a 47 percent reduction to approximately $3.9 billion. The Senate committee's bill kept NASA science funding, integral to the support of Artemis and its mission, roughly at their current levels, while the House draft halved the cuts proposed by the White House. The Senate appropriations committee also firmly rejected the president's original proposal to terminate Project Artemis's Space Launch System and Orion Spacecraft after the conclusion of the Artemis III mission. This conflict and dizzying back and forth regarding America's moonshot project suggests a question: Are we committed to Artemis and the broader goal of understanding space? Or to put it another way: Do we want to win this new race to the moon? The current administration owes us an answer. There's more than just a soft-power victory over China's taikonauts at stake. This endeavor is about cementing the U.S. as a technological superpower, a center for understanding space and our solar system, and in due course, setting us up to be the first to live and work on the moon. Americans support this goal. A recent CBS News poll shows broad support for sending astronauts back to the moon. But it will be hard for the administration to reconcile its anti-government spending message with a full-throated support of Artemis and related missions. This isn't the first time the U.S. has faced such a debate. In the winter of 1967, Senator Clinton P. Anderson and his space committee initiated an inquiry into the disastrous Apollo 1 fire that killed three American astronauts. Letters flooded into Congress. Concerned citizens across the country offered their theories about the cause of the conflagration. But others asked a more poignant question that was at the center of national debate: Why are we going to the moon in the first place? 'I want to say here and now that I think the moon project is the most terrible waste of national funds that I can imagine,' wrote James P. Smith of Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. in a letter housed at the Legislative Archives in Washington D.C. 'Let [the Russians] go to the moon and let us use our money to end the war in Vietnam and raise our standards of living.' Others pressed their representatives to not give up their support of the Apollo program. Julius H. Cooper, Jr., of Delmar, Md., said in his letter to Anderson's committee: 'Should a manned landing by the Soviets occur on the moon first make no mistake about it the political and scientific repercussions will be tremendous.' Today's America, in many ways, is the same. Social discord, financial struggles, and conflicts abroad continue to consume our country's time, energy and resources. But the value of Project Artemis goes beyond the scientific discoveries and technological advancements that await. The success of this new moonshot will at the very least prevent space dominance from adversaries, including Russia and China, which have partnered together on their own International Lunar Research Station. Both countries have declined to sign onto the Artemis Accords, a worrying sign that these nations don't agree with our approach to the 'peaceful' exploration and use of space. To be clear, this Artemis isn't just a jobs program. Although the work created by these missions will bring a positive economic impact, the reality is that humankind's future is among the stars. Our government should be the one to orchestrate the path there while inspiring the next generation to continue exploring the depths of space. But instead of leaning into the benefits of Project Artemis, the administration is creating hurdles for the moon bound mission. To start, NASA has no permanent leadership. The administration withdrew its nomination of tech billionaire and civilian astronaut Jared Isaacman to lead the space agency, so despite the recent appointment of Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy as interim administrator, NASA will continue for months without a leader pushing Project Artemis forward. And despite Duffy's assurance that Artemis is a critical mission, the message runs hollow if word from the Oval Office doesn't match. Again, the president initially called for the end of the program's Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule following the Artemis III mission for more cost-effective commercial systems. Trump's initial budget also called for the termination of the Gateway station, the planned lunar outpost and critical component of Project Artemis's infrastructure. This would effectively kill the program that President Trump championed with his initial space policy directive. Congress did ultimately provide funding for additional Artemis missions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but it remains to be seen whether that reflects a sustained change in the administration's commitment. The success of Artemis requires extended support, not preemptively phasing out critical mission components or funding for NASA's incredibly valuable science missions. Artemis and NASA's science programs contribute an extraordinary amount toward America's technological might, so funding shouldn't be framed as an 'either/or' proposition. Now is the time to brush away uncertainty and put Artemis on a track forward. As critics have pointed out, it is unclear whether NASA has a tangible plan for getting to the moon and back. The lunar landing system is still in the concept stage. This is a chance for the president to show leadership by stepping in and pushing his government to achieve a monumental task, one that he might compare to the success of Operation Warp Speed during his first term. The administration needs to move fast and nominate a leader for NASA who will prioritize Artemis and its core mission. It needs to walk back plans to slim down government that are causing 2,000 senior officials to leave NASA at a time when leadership matters more than ever before. In short, Project Artemis requires financial certainty. The success of the program will come from the willingness of this administration to fully commit to it. In Air & Space magazine's June/July 1989 issue commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, author Andy Chaikin opined on why America hadn't yet gone back. 'One of the lessons of Apollo is that the decision to 'go someplace' can't come from anyone in NASA, or from moon advocates, or from the Mars advocates,' he wrote. 'It's got to come from the top.' If President Trump supports this moonshot, Americans deserve a clear justification straight from the Oval Office. Americans need to buy into the message from the top, whether it's one of technological or political superiority, a desire to discover the unknown, or something else. Ultimately, Senator Anderson's 1967 space committee recommended that the Apollo program continue, with the caveat that improvements needed to be made. Today, boxes of letters sent into the Apollo 1 investigatory committee sit in the Center for Legislative Archives in Washington, D.C., serving as a time capsule of one of America's most contentious debates. Inside one of these boxes there's a handwritten letter from a woman named Ruth B. Harkness, of Wataga, Ill., inquiring about the U.S.'s determination to get to the moon. It distills down the very question we're struggling with now. 'May I ask, Why?' she wrote. Tell us, Mr. President.
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
The floods in Texas show why we need to fully fund NOAA labs
A national discussion is underway on the role of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service in forecasting the deadly July 4 flash floods in Kerr County, Texas. The record shows that the hard-working meteorologists and other staff at the National Weather Service were successful in providing Texas Hill Country with timely, accurate forecasts. It is critical to reflect on government role's in the short term and build a minute-by-minute chronology of the disaster. But it is equally important to highlight the long-term investments America needs for climate and weather resilience. This means talking about the NOAA labs and other research centers dedicated to basic science. These institutions are essential to innovation in precipitation forecasting and warnings that save lives, yet they are on the chopping block in the president's latest Fiscal Year 2026 budget proposal. President Trump's budget proposal called for closing all NOAA labs and cooperative institutes with universities. It also calls for closing its Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, which funds and coordinates with the labs and cooperative institutes. Congress is debating funding levels for NOAA research now as it begins the appropriations process. A final budget aligned with the president's proposal would devastate NOAA research, including precipitation research, rendering the agency unable to update and innovate the weather and climate models that support the military, businesses, individuals and community institutions like Camp Mystic in Texas. Consider the significance of NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, Oklahoma. The lab, working with the University of Oklahoma and the Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, developed the Flooded Locations and Simulated Hydrographs Project (FLASH), which improves the accuracy, timing and specificity of flash-flood warnings. FLASH doubled accuracy for the National Weather Service, improved spatial resolution by 500 percent, provided up to six hours of forecast lead time and improved forecasters' ability to identify rare, severe flash floods. Consider also the role of labs and cooperative institutes in developing NOAA's newest hurricane model, the Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System. The model attests to NOAA's commitment to continually improving its forecasts for potentially catastrophic natural disasters. In 2024 alone, there were five tropical cyclones causing losses exceeding $1 billion in the U.S., and NOAA predicts an above-normal 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, with three to five major hurricanes. Hurricane forecasting is especially difficult in today's era of 'rapid intensification,' which refers to an increase in the maximum sustained winds of a tropical cyclone of at least 30 knots in a 24-hour period. The magnitude of rapid intensification in the central and eastern Atlantic Ocean has been increasing over the past 30 years. The Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System has made critical improvements in predicting the path and intensity of hurricanes. The model, operational since June 2023, has saved lives, property and infrastructure. In 2024, it successfully predicted the rapid intensifications of hurricanes Helene and Milton. At its peak, Milton reached Category 5 intensity and became one of the strongest hurricanes on record in the Atlantic basin. Helene landed in Florida as a Category 4 storm and became the deadliest hurricane in the contiguous U.S. since Katrina. The Hurricane Analysis and Forecast System's success was no accident. Its design came to fruition after careful investment. It took five years of research and development from three NOAA centers of excellence: the National Weather Service Environmental Modeling Center, the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory, and the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies. Trump and his allies in Congress seem to think that Americans can enjoy NOAA's finished products, such as high-quality hurricane forecasts, without spending a dime on basic research. Eighty years of federally sponsored scientific research tell us otherwise. 'Basic research leads to new knowledge,' wrote American inventor and engineer Vannevar Bush in a landmark report on science to President Harry S. Truman. 'It provides scientific capital. It creates the fund from which the practical applications of knowledge must be drawn. New products and new processes do not appear full-grown. They are founded on new principles and new conceptions, which in turn are painstakingly developed by research in the purest realms of science.' We cannot uproot the tree of science and expect it to still bear fruit. Congress should fully fund NOAA research and all other parts of this essential agency, or risk endangering American lives, property and infrastructure.
Politico
2 days ago
- Politico
Trump's man in NASA
With help from Laura Kayali WELCOME TO POLITICO PRO SPACE. I got the first interview with NASA chief of staff Brian Hughes, the most senior Trump administration appointee at the agency. Read on for his take on the big changes happening at NASA. What's your take on the agency's direction? Email me at sskove@ with tips, pitches and feedback, and find me on X at @samuelskove. And remember, we're offering this newsletter for free over the next few weeks. After that, only POLITICO Pro subscribers will receive it. Read all about it here. The Spotlight Few space nerds could have predicted Brian Hughes' rise from Florida political operative and former National Security Council spokesperson to one of the most powerful figures at NASA. It started in June when billionaire Jared Isaacman was all set to take over as NASA administrator — only to see that job yanked away amid a bitter fight between his prospective boss, President Donald Trump, and his old business partner, Elon Musk. When the dust settled, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy was left in charge as 'interim' NASA director, with a slate of big tasks. The agency must plan a mission to the moon and then Mars, deal with proposed budget cuts that decimate science research, and handle a staff exodus. It's still not clear who is leading space policy at the White House, and it may be months until NASA has a permanent administrator. Enter Hughes, who amid the turmoil, became the agency's chief of staff. Hughes, in his first public interview since taking the job in May, laid out what he sees as the agency's priorities, and responded to concerns about its future. Florida man: Hughes, who doesn't have a background in space, let alone NASA, is not your typical chief of staff — although he does say he's 'a proud member of nerds of America.' But Hughes brings along an important qualification. He's close to the White House, thanks to his role leading Trump's Florida campaign and his long history working with White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. To-do list: Hughes' top goals for NASA include pulling off a moon landing, supporting space commercialization, making progress toward sending astronauts to Mars and replacing the aging International Space Station. Moon vs. Mars: To the relief of moon advocates, Hughes suggested that NASA wouldn't follow along with Musk's dreams of ditching a moon mission in favor of Mars. NASA will pursue the 'moon as a pathway towards Mars, but really a focus on the moon in the short term,' he told me. Brain drain defense: NASA has seen nearly 4,000 employees walk out the door in the wake of proposed massive cuts and Trump administration efforts to thin the federal government. Hughes pushed back on the idea that the losses were devastating to the agency, even though most of the departures are senior level positions. 'I don't think there's any critical loss' of knowledge, he said. The agency is working to limit the impact by staggering departures, he added, and sixty percent of those who are leaving are at retirement age. 'Even when some senior people have left, there's an additional cadre behind them,' Hughes said. Budget battle: But the biggest storm clouds he'll likely face involve the coming battle between Congress and the White House over the NASA budget. The White House wants a cut of almost 25 percent, the biggest slash to the agency in decades. Congress would like to keep NASA funding where it is, and lawmakers aren't backing down. Hughes — perhaps hopefully — suggested that Congress and the White House could reach common ground as they work on the budget. 'It'll be like anything else — manage the consensus and respect the will of Congress,' he said. Galactic Government READY FOR LAUNCH: The U.S. has made progress in encouraging the mad scientists behind America's growing rocket launch industry. But the government needs to spread the financial love if it wants to keep costs low and the country secure, according to a new paper provided exclusively to me from the Progressive Policy Institute. One company — United Launch Alliance — used to dominate the launch industry. But the military and NASA now have more than a half dozen to choose from, including SpaceX, Rocket Lab and Blue Origin. Monopoly: While more choices are usually good for business, government buying patterns mean that the U.S. could end up with fewer launch providers than it needs, according to report author Mary Guenther, head of space policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. NASA, for example, could buy from a range of companies. But it still contracts with SpaceX for more than 60 percent of its missions. 'The agency needs to reassess its acquisition policies to avoid a relationship of convenience with SpaceX,' she wrote. It's regulation: Guenther also flagged a lack of launch infrastructure and a tough regulatory environment as an obstacle to the growth of the market. A lack of staffing at the office that licenses launches, for example, means the office must triage applications, a practice that Guenther said often favors SpaceX. Why it matters: The risk of relying on any one rocket company burst into view in early June during a rift between Trump and Musk, SpaceX's founder. Trump threatened to cancel government contracts with the billionaire, causing Musk to say he would cancel SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, the only way for the U.S. to get to and from the International Space Station without relying on Russia. Fortunately for American astronauts, he did not follow through. Military THE TRUMP BUMP: While European governments remain highly dependent on U.S. weaponry, fears about Trump's unreliability are fueling them to try and buy local. That's especially true in the space domain. Rafał Modrzewski, the CEO of Finnish-based satellite company ICEYE, said in an interview that he saw a direct correlation between Trump's temporary decision to stop sharing space intelligence with Ukraine in March and a boost in government demand for his firm's military satellites. 'That was a huge wake-up call for countries contemplating whether they should own their own satellites or rather lease from allied nations and benefit from intelligence sharing,' he said. The European Commission has identified space-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance as a key gap in European arsenals. Europe and beyond: ICEYE customers include NATO, Ukraine, Poland, Greece, Finland and Portugal. The company is also active in Japan, South Korea, the UAE and is hoping to increase its footprint in Brazil. Caveat: ICEYE satellites are mainly launched by American company SpaceX. Oops. The Reading Room Silicon valley enters the space race: POLITICO What is the FAA planning for rocket launch licenses?: Payload Musk ordered shutdown of Starlink satellite service as Ukraine retook territory from Russia: Reuters Air leak persists on Russian ISS segment: SpaceNews India safely launches a $1.5 billion satellite for NASA: Ars Technica Event Horizon MONDAY: The Mitchell Institute holds a webinar with Lt. Gen. DeAnna Burt of the Space Force. WEDNESDAY: The Intelligence and National Security Association holds a meeting on securing space. THURSDAY: The Federal Communications Commission holds an open meeting that will include discussion of space. The Progressive Policy Institute hosts a 'Space & National Security Happy Hour' at Hawk 'N' Dove. Photo of the Week MORNING MONEY: CAPITAL RISK — POLITICO's flagship financial newsletter has a new Friday edition built for the economic era we're living in: one shaped by political volatility, disruption and a wave of policy decisions with sector-wide consequences. Each week, Morning Money: Capital Risk brings sharp reporting and analysis on how political risk is moving markets and how investors are adapting. Want to know how health care regulation, tariffs or court rulings could ripple through the economy? Start here. (To sign up, add Financial Services to your policy interests and then add Morning Money to your newsletters.)
