The Trump administration has finalized a major change to the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), revising how federal agencies define “harm” to protected wildlife. The rule changes the treatment of habitat modification under the law and could affect future decisions involving energy projects, mining, agriculture, and real estate development.
The policy has drawn support from administration officials and industry groups, while environmental organizations say they plan to challenge the rule in court.
The Interior Department and Commerce Department announced Friday that they have finalized a rule redefining what constitutes “harm” under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
For decades, federal regulations interpreted harm to include habitat modification or degradation that could injure protected species by affecting their ability to feed, breed, or find shelter.
The revised rule narrows that interpretation, focusing on actions that directly injure or kill protected wildlife.
Changes
The administration said the previous interpretation expanded federal authority beyond the language of the law.
Officials argued the updated rule returns implementation of the ESA to what they describe as its original statutory intent.
| Previous Interpretation | New Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Included habitat destruction that could harm protected species | Focuses on actions that directly injure or kill listed species |
| Applied to habitat modification affecting survival | Narrows the definition of “harm” |
According to the Interior Department, the rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register.
Administration
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the previous interpretation created unnecessary regulatory burdens for landowners, businesses, and communities.
He stated that the revised rule reduces what the administration views as federal overreach while remaining consistent with the text of the Endangered Species Act.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick also said the changes would benefit industries, including commercial fishing, by reducing regulatory requirements.
Opposition
Environmental organizations criticized the rule and announced plans to challenge it in court.
Groups including Earthjustice and Oceana argue that habitat loss remains one of the leading threats to endangered species and that limiting habitat protections weakens one of the law’s primary conservation tools.
Opponents also point to a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the broader interpretation of harm, including habitat destruction.
Legal
The revised rule is expected to face legal scrutiny soon after publication.
Environmental organizations argue the new interpretation conflicts with existing legal precedent established by the Supreme Court.
If the lawsuits proceed through the federal court system, judges will determine whether the revised rule is consistent with the Endangered Species Act and prior court decisions.
Background
The Endangered Species Act was enacted in 1973 to protect species at risk of extinction and conserve the ecosystems on which they depend.
Federal agencies have interpreted the law over several decades, with habitat protection becoming a central component of conservation efforts.
The Trump administration has previously sought changes to ESA regulations during both President Donald Trump’s first and second terms. Some earlier regulatory revisions have remained in effect, while others have been overturned by federal courts.
The latest rule represents another significant policy change and is expected to become the subject of continued legal and policy debate.
FAQs
What does the new rule change?
It narrows the definition of harm under the ESA.
Who announced the rule?
The Interior and Commerce Departments.
Why do opponents object?
They say habitat protections are being weakened.
Will the rule face legal challenges?
Environmental groups say they plan to sue.
When was the ESA enacted?
The Endangered Species Act became law in 1973.
