The Trump administration is advancing a proposal that would significantly alter the interpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), raising concerns among conservationists and legal experts.
The proposed rule, released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, would eliminate habitat destruction as a qualifying form of harm under the Act.
The shift could have sweeping implications for at-risk species, as it would remove the obligation to protect ecosystems that support them. Conservation groups have already signalled they intend to challenge the move in court, citing decades of legal precedent and environmental progress.
Redefining ‘Harm’ Could Remove Protections for Vital Habitats
At the centre of the proposed rule is a redefinition of the term “harm,” which has long included significant habitat modification under the ESA. The administration argues that only direct actions targeting wildlife, known as “take,” should qualify.
As stated in the proposal, habitat destruction does not equate to intentional harm unless the species is directly targeted.
Environmental organisations, including the Center for Biological Diversity, have strongly opposed this interpretation. Noah Greenwald, the group’s endangered species director, said the new definition “cuts the heart out of the Endangered Species Act,” pointing to cases like the spotted owl and Florida panther, which depend on existing habitat protections.
According to Earthjustice, the rule undermines a “common-sense” understanding that destroying a species’ environment is equivalent to harming the species itself. Legal precedent supports this view.
The Supreme Court upheld the broader definition of “harm” in the 1995 Sweet Home decision, which included significant habitat modification as a valid form of take.
Potential impact on conservation efforts and legal precedent
Legal experts suggest the proposed rule could face significant obstacles. According to Patrick Parenteau, emeritus professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School, the decision to redefine harm contradicts existing legal precedent. “Because of the current definition of harm,” he noted, “many, many millions of acres of land has been conserved”
The implications are particularly severe for states like Hawaii, home to over 40% of the nation’s listed endangered species despite representing less than 1% of its landmass, according to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
The Hawaiian Department of Land and Natural Resources reports that 31 out of 42 endemic bird species are federally listed, with ten potentially already extinct due to habitat degradation.
The proposal was due to be published in the Federal Register, triggering a 30-day public comment period. The Department of the Interior has declined to comment on the pending rule. Environmental groups, meanwhile, are preparing for legal action to defend what they consider foundational protections of the ESA.
