In a significant shift, the Trump administration on Friday dismantled decades of environmental protection laws safeguarding endangered species. This policy change could potentially open the door to drilling, mining, agriculture, and real estate projects in previously protected habitats.
The newly finalized rules, established by the Interior and Commerce Departments, alter the definition of what is considered “harm” to endangered species and their habitats under the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Previously, the law barred any “habitat modification or degradation” that might threaten the survival of endangered animals by affecting their ability to reproduce or find food and shelter. This definition was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1995 decision.
On Friday, the administration termed the prior definition “outdated” in its official statement. They argued that the new interpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) aligns with its original text and intent, putting an end to what they described as excessive federal intervention over the years.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum commented on this change, suggesting that the previous approach turned routine activities into a regulatory quagmire, escalating costs that impacted citizens’ lives and broadening federal powers beyond congressional intent.
Burgum further claimed that federal agencies had utilized the ESA to hinder lawful land use, imposing burdens on American families and businesses. He characterized the administration’s recent action as a “common sense” move, asserting it adheres to the statute originally enacted by Congress.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick added in a statement that the new rule would benefit fishermen who suffered from “overly broad and burdensome regulations.”
The rule
"For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn't be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food," Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles said in a statement. "There is no support for the Trump Administration's rule - no scientific support, no legal support, no public support."
Interior and Commerce insisted narrower "core protections" for endangered species would still be enacted, adding their definition of the bedrock environmental law would prevent "actions that directly injure or kill listed wildlife."
However, environmental groups will challenge that narrower definition, pointing to the 1995 Supreme Court case, which upheld the broader definition of harm, including habitat destruction. But if legal challenges to the Trump administration's reversal make it up to the Supreme Court again, environmentalists will be facing a far more conservative court.
"Habitat loss is the number one cause of extinction," Gib Brogan, senior campaign director at Oceana, said in a statement. "When you remove habitat protections, you remove one of the law's most important safeguards."
The Trump administration has attempted to claw back the Endangered Species Act throughout President Donald Trump's first and second administration, with varying levels of success.
Earlier this year, several high-ranking Trump officials, including Burgum,