This commentary examines the challenges and limitations of the current consultation process between the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the United States. The process, which requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to register pesticides to comply with ESA mandates, has become increasingly complex due to overlapping species ranges, conservative risk-assessment methodologies, and resource constraints. The authors identify three major obstacles: insufficient resources, excessive litigation, and conflicting objectives between FIFRA and ESA. They argue that current screening-level assessments are overly conservative, leading to inefficiencies and potentially unnecessary mitigation measures. The paper advocates integrating higher-tier data, advanced modeling, and stakeholder engagement to improve ecological risk assessments (ERAs). Recommendations include adopting tiered frameworks, prioritizing species based on actual threats, leveraging probabilistic geospatial tools, and considering broader anthropogenic stressors beyond pesticides. Ultimately, the authors call for a science-driven, transparent, and collaborative approach to streamline the FIFRA/ESA process, enhance protection for listed species, and support agricultural productivity.