Trump administration narrows ESA 'harm' definition, weakening protections

The Trump administration finalized a rule that removes habitat destruction from the Endangered Species Act’s definition of “harm.” Under the new interpretation, developers may alter or degrade critical wildlife habitats as long as the animals are not directly injured or killed, streamlining permitting for energy, mining, agriculture and infrastructure projects.

Conservation groups warn the change undermines a law that has prevented the extinction of 99% of listed species, citing iconic wildlife such as the whooping crane, bald eagle, California condor and many others. Dr. Rich Beilfuss of the International Crane Foundation said, “You cannot protect a species while allowing the destruction of the only places it can live.” Jewel Tomasula of the Endangered Species Coalition called the rule “un‑American and extremely unpopular.” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum defended the change as “common‑sense” that respects private property rights.

Legal challenges are expected from organizations such as Earthjustice, which argue the rule overturns decades of Supreme Court precedent that treated habitat loss as harmful. The policy shift marks one of the most consequential revisions to the ESA in decades, with potential long‑term impacts on biodiversity and land‑use decisions across the United States.