Attorney General Phil Weiser on Thursday expanded a lawsuit filed to keep U.S. Space Command in Colorado to now encapsulate a broader “revenge campaign” that he said the Trump administration was waging against Colorado.

Weiser named a litany of moves the Trump administration had made in recent weeks — from moving to shut down the National Center for Atmospheric Research to putting food assistance in limbo to denying disaster declarations — in his updated lawsuit.

He said during a news conference that he hoped both to reverse the individual cuts and freezes and to win a general declaration from a judge that the moves were part of an unconstitutional pattern of coercion.

“I recognize this is a novel request, and that’s because this is an unprecedented administration,” Weiser, a Democrat, said. “We’ve never seen an administration act in a way that is so flatly violating the Constitution and disrespecting state sovereign authority. We have to protect our authority (and) defend the principles we believe in.”

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Denver, began in October as an effort to force the administration to keep U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs. President Donald Trump, a Republican, announced in September that he was moving the command’s headquarters to Alabama, and he cited Colorado’s mail-in voting system as one of the reasons.

Trump has also repeatedly lashed out over the state’s incarceration of Tina Peters, the former county clerk convicted of state felonies related to her attempts to prove discredited election conspiracies shared by the president. Trump issued a pardon of Peters in December — a power he does not have for state crimes — and then “instituted a weeklong series of punishments and threats targeted against Colorado,” according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit cites the administration’s termination of $109 million in transportation grants, cancellation of $615 million in Department of Energy funds for Colorado, announcement of plans to dismantle NCAR in Boulder, demand that the state recertify food assistance eligibility for more than 100,000 households, and denial of disaster relief assistance for last year’s Elk and Lee fires.

In that time, Trump also vetoed a pipeline project for southeastern Colorado — a move the House failed to override Thursday — and repeatedly took to social media to attack state officials.

The Trump administration also announced Tuesday that he would suspend potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of low-income assistance to Colorado over unspecified allegations of fraud. Those actions were not covered by Weiser’s lawsuit, though he told reporters to “stay tuned” for a response.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service backed Colorado’s plan to obtain wolves from Canada nearly two years before the federal agency lambasted the move as a violation of its rules, newly obtained documents show.  

In a letter dated Feb. 14, 2024, the federal agency told Colorado state wildlife officials they were in the clear to proceed with a plan to source wolves from British Columbia without further permission.

“Because Canadian gray wolves aren’t listed under the Endangered Species Act,” no ESA authorization or federal authorization was needed for the state to capture or import them in the Canadian province, according to the letter sent to Eric Odell, CPW’s wolf conservation program manager. 

The letter, obtained by The Colorado Sun from state Parks and Wildlife through an open records request, appears to be part of the permissions the state received before sourcing 15 wolves. The agency also received sign-offs from the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna.  

In mid-December, however, the Fish and Wildlife Service pivoted sharply from that position, criticizing the plan and threatening to take control over Colorado’s reintroduction. 

In a letter dated Dec. 18, Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik put CPW on alert when he told acting CPW Director Laura Clellan that the agency violated requirements in a federal rule that dictates how CPW manages its reintroduction. 

Colorado voters in 2020 directed CPW to reestablish gray wolves west of the Continental Divide, a process that has included bringing wolves from Oregon in 2023 and British Columbia in 2025.

The federal rule Nesvik claims CPW violated is the 10(j). It gives Colorado management flexibility over wolves by classifying them as a nonessential experimental population within the state of Colorado. Nesvik said CPW violated the 10(j) by capturing wolves from Canada instead of the northern Rocky Mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, eastern Oregon and north-central Utah “with no warning or notice to its own citizens.” 

CPW publicly announced sourcing from British Columbia on Sept. 13, 2024, however, and held a meeting with county commissioners in Rio Blanco, Garfield, Pitkin and Eagle counties ahead of the planned releases last January. The agency also issued press releases when the operations began and at the conclusion of operations, and they held a press conference less than 48 hours later.

Nesvik’s December letter doubled down on one he sent CPW on Oct. 10, after Greg Lopez, a former Colorado congressman and 2026 gubernatorial candidate, contacted him claiming the agency violated the Endangered Species Act when it imported wolves from Canada, because they lacked permits proving the federal government authorized the imports. 

That letter told CPW to “cease and desist” going back to British Columbia for a second round of wolves, after the agency had obtained the necessary permits to complete the operation. Nesvik’s reasoning was that CPW had no authority to capture wolves from British Columbia because they aren’t part of the northern Rocky Mountain region population.  

But as regulations within the 10(j) show, the northern Rocky Mountain population of wolves “is part of a larger metapopulation of wolves that encompasses all of Western Canada.” 

And “given the demonstrated resilience and recovery trajectory of the NRM population and limited number of animals that will be captured for translocations,” the agencies that developed the rule – Fish and Wildlife with Colorado Parks and Wildlife – expected “negative impacts to the donor population to be negligible.” 

So despite what Nesvik and Lopez claim, “neither identified any specific provision of any law – federal, state or otherwise – that CPW or anyone else supposedly violated by capturing and releasing wolves from British Columbia,” said Tom Delehanty, senior attorney for Earthjustice. “They’ve pointed only to the 10(j) rule, which is purely about post-release wolf management, and  applies only in Colorado.” 

More experts weigh in 

In addition to the 2024 letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service, documents obtained by The Sun include copies of permits given to CPW by the Ministry of British Columbia to export 15 wolves to the United States between Jan. 12 and Jan. 16, 2025. 

These permits track everything from live animals and pets to products made from protected wildlife including ivory. 

The permit system is the backbone of the regulation of trade in specimens of species included in the three Appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, also called CITES. A CITES permit is the confirmation by an issuing authority that the conditions for authorizing the trade are fulfilled, meaning the trade is legal, sustainable and traceable in accordance with articles contained within the Convention. 

Gary Mowad, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife agent and expert on Endangered Species Act policies, said “obtaining a CITES certificate is unrelated to the 10j rule” and that in his estimation, CPW did violate both the terms of the 10(j) and the memorandum of agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service, because “the 10(j) specifically limited the populations from where wolves could be obtained, and Canada was not authorized.” 

Mike Phillips, a Montana legislator who was instrumental in Yellowstone’s wolf reintroduction that began in 1995, thinks “the posturing about a takeover seems like just casually considered bravado from Interior officials.” 

And Delahanty says “Nesvik and Lopez are making up legal requirements that don’t exist for political leverage in an effort that serves no one. It’s unclear what FWS hopes to accomplish with its threatening letter,” but if they rescind the memorandum of agreement, “it would cast numerous elements of Colorado’s wolf management program into uncertainty.” 

Looking forward 

If Fish and Wildlife does as Nesvik’s letter threatens and revokes all of CPW’s authority over grey wolves in its jurisdiction, “the service would assume all gray wolf management activities, including relocation and lethal removal, as determined necessary,” it says. 

But Phillips says “if Fish and Wildlife succeeds in the agency’s longstanding goal of delisting gray wolves nationwide,” a proposition that is currently moving through Congress, with U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert’s Pet and Livestock Protection Act bill, the agency couldn’t take over Colorado’s wolf program. That’s because “wolf conservation falls back to Colorado with (its voter-approved) restoration mandate.” And “the species is listed as endangered/nongame under state law,” he adds. 

If the feds did take over, Phillips said in an email “USFWS does not have staff for any meaningful boots-on-the-ground work.” Under Fish and Wildlife Service control, future translocations would probably be “a firm nonstarter,” he added, “but that seems to be the case now.” 

A big threat should Fish and Wildlife take over is that lethal removal of wolves “in the presence of real or imagined conflicts might be more quickly applied,” Phillips said. 

But it would all be tied up in legal constraints, given that gray wolves are still considered an endangered species in Colorado, and requirements of the 10(j) and state law say CPW must advance their recovery. 

So for now, it’s wait and see if CPW can answer Fish and Wildlife’s demand that accompanies Nesvik’s latest letter. 

Nesvik told the agency they must report “all gray wolf conservation and management activities that occurred from Dec. 12, 2023, until present,” as well as provide a narrative summary and all associated documents describing both the January 2025 British Columbia release and other releases by Jan. 18., or 30 days after the date on his letter. If they don’t, he said, Fish and Wildlife “will pursue all legal remedies,” including “the immediate revocation of all CPW authority over gray wolves in its jurisdiction.” 

Shelby Wieman, a spokesperson for Gov. Jared Polis’ office, said Colorado disagrees with the premise of Nesvik’s letter and remains “fully committed to fulfilling the will of Colorado voters and successfully reintroducing the gray wolf population in Colorado.” 

And CPW maintains it “has coordinated with USFWS throughout the gray wolf reintroduction effort and has complied with all applicable federal and state laws. This includes translocations in January of 2025 which were planned and performed in consultation with USFWS.”