Key facts
- The Trump administration finalized a rule to open endangered species habitats to development.
- The rule redefines "harm" under the Endangered Species Act, excluding habitat modification.
- Habitat destruction is a primary driver of species loss.
- Environmental groups plan to challenge the administration's decision in court.
- The administration claims the change aligns with the law's original intent and reduces regulatory burdens.
The Trump administration has finalized a rule that alters the definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a move environmental advocates fear will significantly increase habitat destruction for imperiled wildlife. For five decades, the ESA's definition of harm encompassed protecting critical habitats, a stance upheld by the Supreme Court in 1995. However, the administration has now reframed this as "regulatory intrusion" that interferes with private property rights, effectively removing broad habitat protections.
Habitat destruction is identified as the leading cause of species loss, and the ESA has been credited with preventing the extinction of 99% of the over 1,700 species it has protected. Experts warn that this regulatory rollback could be devastating for species already on the brink, especially amidst a broader extinction crisis exacerbated by climate change, which threatens approximately 1 million species globally.
Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles stated that this is the first time an administration has claimed protected species should not be safe from habitat modification. Stephanie Kurose of the Center for Biological Diversity previously called the proposal a "death sentence" for species like wolverines and monarch butterflies. The administration, however, argues that the changes align with the law's original intent and aim to prevent "routine activity" from becoming a "regulatory trap" for businesses and families.
Despite broad public support for strong species protections, with polls showing high favorability for full ESA funding and the importance of biodiversity, the administration is pursuing a wider deregulatory agenda. This includes efforts to boost energy extraction and industrial access in sensitive natural areas. Advocates are preparing legal challenges, asserting there is no scientific, legal, or public support for the new rule.