The U.S. government is seriously considering a radical reinterpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Such a change would greatly undermine the ESA’s ability to protect endangered species and their habitats. For half a century, the ESA has been the bedrock of legal protections for threatened and endangered species. Instead, it works to block harmful practices against these animals and the destruction of their habitats. Specifically, the Trump administration has proposed to redefine “harm” to exclude certain damage and risks. This shift has the potential to be hugely transformational for wildlife conservation efforts.
Currently, the ESA prohibits the “take” of any endangered fish or wildlife. This rule shields these species from being destroyed, injured, or taken by human activities. Since 1975, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s regulations have defined “harm” to include destruction of habitat that causes injury or death to animals. This expansive interpretation has made it possible to protect vast ecosystems absolutely necessary for the continued existence of the 1,688 species listed currently. The proposed rule change would remove this definition, allowing the destruction of critical habitat that may endanger the continued existence of our nation’s endangered species.
Evidence shows that habitat destruction is the biggest overall threat to biodiversity. And a 2022 study found that habitat loss is a larger threat to species than all other threats combined. A 2019 analysis found that habitat loss and degradation is the main threat to 81% of species listed as endangered since 1975. In comparison, a mere 17% of these species are threatened directly by killing, like through hunting or poaching.
More than 107 million acres of land across the US are currently designated as critical habitat for species listed under the ESA. Changing the definition of “harm” would have far-reaching impacts on these protected lands. Environmental advocates are sounding the alarm that this decision could green-light future actions that imperil these critical habitats. Consequently, it will be almost impossible to adequately protect species that are finally listed as endangered.
Support for the ESA runs deep, with bipartisan, including Republican voter, support. Conservationists are sounding the tanks on this proposed move. They claim it would undo most of the vital safeguards the ESA affords. Forthcoming Supreme Court case Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1995) rose to the challenge and defined “harm” broadly. This historic ruling brought the legal issues involved into stark relief.
Stakeholders and members of the public alike should speak out against this misguided proposal. They now have until May 19, 2025, to file comments on the possible change of the definition of “harm.”
