1. United States
2. N.C.
3. Letter

I am writing to express serious concerns about the Trump administration's partnership with Colossal Biosciences to create a biobank of genetic material from endangered species. While preserving genetic diversity has merit, this arrangement raises troubling questions about the use of public resources for private benefit. Federal wildlife biologists, paid by taxpayers, will collect irreplaceable biological samples. Yet Colossal—a for-profit company with minimal track record—will retain ownership and access rights, with no obligation to provide public benefit. The government is not even compensating the company, making this effectively a subsidy of their commercial biotechnology operations. This approach excludes established conservation organizations better suited for long-term stewardship. The San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance has operated the Frozen Zoo for 50 years, demonstrating institutional stability and commitment to conservation science. Universities, government laboratories, and reputable nonprofits like The Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund have decades of experience managing biological resources. These organizations should have equal or primary access to materials collected with public funds. However, the most fundamental flaw is this: biobanking is nearly worthless if the ecosystems hosting these species are destroyed. Genetic samples cannot restore a species to a world with degraded habitats, poisoned watersheds, or collapsed food chains. Yet the Interior Department is simultaneously loosening oil and gas leasing rules, accelerating extractive industries that destroy critical wildlife habitat. Climate change, unregulated mining, and careless development continue unchecked while we preserve DNA in freezers. We are collecting genetic insurance policies while burning down the house. This contradiction reveals the initiative's core problem: it allows the administration to claim conservation credentials while dismantling the Endangered Species Act and expanding industries that directly threaten species survival. Additional concerns compound this issue. The five-year agreement can be terminated unilaterally, putting irreplaceable samples at risk if the company fails. More troubling is the philosophical risk: as genetic engineering gains prominence, support for actual habitat protection may erode. As your constituent, I urge you to demand that: Federal genetic materials be held in public trust, managed by government or established nonprofits Multiple conservation organizations receive equal access to publicly-funded samples The administration align its conservation rhetoric with actual policy commitments to habitat protection and climate action Oil and gas leasing rules be strengthened, not weakened, to genuinely protect endangered species Thank you for your consideration of this critical issue.