Trump Administration Proposes Redefinition of ‘Harm’ Under Endangered Species Act, Raising Environmental Concerns

The Trump administration has proposed a major change to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), aiming to narrow the definition of "harm" to endangered and threatened wildlife. Under the new rule, actions that impair or damage the habitats of protected species would no longer be considered harmful under the ESA.

The proposal was announced jointly by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The suggested revision would limit federal agencies’ ability to regulate industrial or developmental activities that impact ecosystems supporting endangered species. This includes timber, mining, oil, and government-led infrastructure projects.

The redefinition marks a significant departure from the existing interpretation of the ESA, which currently considers habitat destruction as a direct form of harm to species’ survival. Environmental organizations have raised concerns that this change would weaken conservation efforts that have been in place since the Act’s introduction in 1973.

The Endangered Species Act has played a critical role in preserving numerous species across the United States. Conservation efforts under the ESA are credited with preventing the extinction of the bald eagle, gray wolf, grizzly bear, Florida manatee, and humpback whale. Critics argue that the new rule would jeopardize these achievements by removing federal protections for critical habitats.

Under current rules, activities such as deforestation, coastal development, and pollution can be restricted or regulated if they pose a threat to a species’ habitat. The revised definition would no longer allow federal authorities to intervene solely on the basis of habitat loss, unless physical injury or death to animals is proven.

Environmental groups argue this change could lead to a dramatic increase in habitat degradation, especially in areas with high commercial interest such as coastal regions, wetlands, and forests. Without legal protections for habitats, species like the spotted owl, sea turtle, and salmon, which rely on specific ecosystems, may face renewed threats of extinction.

The proposal follows a broader agenda under the Trump administration to scale back environmental regulations in favor of economic development. The administration previously announced cuts to climate research, including a $4 million reduction in funding to Princeton University’s climate program. In addition, Trump’s policies have supported expanded fossil fuel exploration, including in protected landscapes like the Arctic and Grand Canyon.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum recently invited proposals to boost domestic energy production, potentially opening national monuments and other ecologically sensitive areas for industrial use. Shortly after, the administration also announced plans to reduce staffing at the Environmental Protection Agency by up to 65 percent, signaling a continued rollback of environmental oversight.

The proposed changes to the ESA are now open for public comment for a 30-day period, during which individuals, researchers, and organizations can submit their feedback. If implemented, the revised definition is expected to face legal challenges from environmental advocacy groups and conservationists.

The administration's move is viewed as part of a broader effort to reshape federal environmental policy, prioritizing resource extraction and industrial development over biodiversity and ecosystem preservation.

As the 2024 elections continue to shape US domestic policy, the fate of landmark environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act remains uncertain.