SerpApi.Org
The Trump administration finalized a sweeping revision to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), narrowing the legal definition of “harm” to protected wildlife. Environmental groups say the change removes one of the law’s strongest safeguards against habitat destruction and could increase extinction risks for species including the wolverine, Florida panther and monarch butterfly.
The rule, issued jointly by the Departments of the Interior and Commerce, limits federal regulation of habitat destruction unless an action directly injures or kills a protected animal. Since the ESA became law in 1973, regulators have interpreted “harm” to include significant habitat degradation affecting breeding, feeding and shelter.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the rule restores “common sense” and provides greater certainty for landowners and businesses.
“For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” Burgum said.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the administration is “returning the ESA to its foundational purpose to ensure legitimate conservation goals are met without sacrificing economic growth and American prosperity.”
Conservation groups sharply criticized the change.
“This is one of the most horrific attempts to harm wildlife in American history and a gift to the oil barons and foreign mining companies,” said Aaron Weiss, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities.
A half-century-old definition under attack
Scientists widely consider habitat loss from development, mining and oil and gas extraction the leading driver of species extinction. The ESA has been credited with helping save species such as the bald eagle, American alligator and California condor largely by protecting the ecosystems they rely on.
The administration first proposed eliminating the existing definition of harm. The proposal drew hundreds of thousands of public comments opposing the change, along with objections from senators, tribes, scientists and legal experts.
In announcing the final rule, the administration called the previous interpretation “outdated,” arguing it “returns the interpretation of the ESA back to its actual text and original intent, which will end years of federal overreach.”
Burgum said the prior approach had turned routine land use into a regulatory burden that increased costs and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended.
Administration officials said core ESA protections remain in place by prohibiting actions that directly injure or kill listed species. They also tied the rule to a 2024 Supreme Court decision limiting federal agencies’ authority to broadly interpret environmental laws.
Species advocates warn could face greater risk
When the proposal was unveiled, Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, called it “a death sentence for wolverines, monarch butterflies, Florida manatees and so many other animals and plants that desperately need our help.”
Conservation groups identified several species they believe face heightened risk:
- Northern spotted owl, whose habitat protections were upheld in a 1995 Supreme Court ruling.
- Florida manatee and Florida panther, both threatened by continued coastal and commercial development.
- Monarch butterfly, which depends on an increasingly fragmented migratory corridor across the U.S. and Mexico.
- Wolverine, which requires large, undisturbed mountain habitats.
- Atlantic salmon, which relies on healthy river systems protected from industrial runoff.
The Center for Biological Diversity said the rule effectively removes habitat protections for endangered species.
Tara Zuardo, a senior campaigner with the organization, called eliminating the definition of harm “a death knell for America’s wildlife,” adding that destroying the places endangered species live inevitably harms them.
Gib Brogan, senior campaign director at Oceana, said habitat loss remains the leading cause of extinction and that removing habitat protections eliminates one of the ESA’s most important safeguards.
Legal challenges already underway
The new rule repeals a long-standing regulatory definition that treated habitat modification as “harm” when it killed or injured wildlife by significantly impairing breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles said, “For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food.”
Boyles added that the rule has no scientific, legal or public support.
Earthjustice has pledged to challenge the rule, arguing it directly conflicts with the Supreme Court’s 1995 ruling in Babbitt v. Sweet Home, which upheld habitat destruction as a form of harm under the ESA.
Other conservation groups, including the Western Environmental Law Center, the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center and Cascadia Wildlands, have also announced plans to sue.
Legal analysts note that if the case reaches the Supreme Court, the challenge will be heard by a significantly more conservative bench than the one that decided Babbitt v. Sweet Home. Several ESA rollbacks enacted during Trump’s first term were later reversed by President Joe Biden. President Donald Trump rolls back wildlife protections.
