On March 31, 2026, the federal government convened a high-level meeting of the Endangered Species Committee (known as the “God Squad”), the first in over 30 years. Citing the Secretary of Defense’s finding that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) threatens national security by hindering Gulf of Mexico oil and gas exploration, the committee exempted all such activity across the Gulf from ESA protections. The action was immediately challenged in court, with multiple lawsuits alleging deficiencies in both the procedure and substance of the committee’s decision, and there is immediate concern about impacts on species such as the Rice’s whale. On April 23, 2026, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of leading experts in the ESA, energy law, and national security law to discuss these breaking developments and the legal issues and interests at stake. Here, we present a transcript of that discussion, which has been edited for style, clarity, and space considerations.

In 2004, visionary environmental leader Gus Speth’s book Red Sky at Morning warned that “[a] global crisis has unfolded quickly . . . but so far we seem unable to step from the path to disaster.” More than 20 years later, we have made great gains, but the fundamental transition Speth envisioned did not come to pass, and global environmental deterioration continues to intensify at an alarming pace. Approaching Speth’s “red sky world” with “blue sky thinking,” members of the 2025 Environmental Law Collaborative explored new strategies for a more sustainable future. This latest in a biannual series of essays covers a wide range of topics, including the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement, monopoly control, the power of local government, reviving international law, encouraging belonging, technology, and more.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or “forever chemicals,” present a nearly unprecedented challenge to global health and the environment. That challenge, in turn, raises recurring legal and scientific issues for court systems globally. This Comment examines the issue of whether manufacturers shared adequate information regarding the hazards of PFAS with their purchasers (and regulators), and delivers insights gained from decades of PFAS litigation in the United States and abroad.

Technology has raised standards of living for people around the world, but technological developments also have unintended and negative impacts on people, places, and the environment. Science, as humanity’s best way of understanding and sharing knowledge of the world, is an essential driver of both technology’s advances and management of its impacts. Yet some long-standing threats, such as climate change, continue to persist and grow despite well-established evidence of harm; emerging advances in fields such as genetic engineering offer grave risks along with great benefits. Meanwhile, public trust in and funding of science are down, and dis- and misinformation are dramatically up, making it harder to agree on the science needed to manage technology’s impacts. On October 23, 2025, ELI convened an expert panel to discuss these issues. Here we present a transcript of the discussion, which has been edited for style, clarity, and space considerations.

This Article explores the significant, detrimental implications of the intellectual property (IP), environmental, and human rights harms created by fast fashion. Fast fashion takes advantage of gaps in U.S. copyright and trademark law; is a leading contributor to waste, greenhouse gases, and microplastic pollution; and allows for continuation of human rights violations, including labor exploitation and unfair wages. The Article (1) examines the current U.S. legal landscape across IP, federal and state actions, and corporate self-governance to highlight the gaps enabling these problems to persist; (2) offers a look into how environmental and human rights harm is directly linked to consumer injury in the United States by discussing specific detrimental impacts at the national level; and (3) proposes that the Federal Trade Commission use its broad statutory authority to regulate the unfair business practices of the fast fashion industry.

While data centers are essential to the digital economy, new legal frameworks must be established that focus on precautionary measures to mitigate the harms of data center resource consumption. When precautionary measures cannot be applied, there should be more robust liability mechanisms that allow affected people to seek recourse. For either to be effective, there must also be new coalitions mobilized to hold data centers accountable.