On Friday, the Trump administration announced plans to open habitats of endangered species to farming, drilling, mining, real‑estate development, and other activities — a move environmentalists have described as the most severe weakening of wildlife protections in five decades.
The policy shift redefines the term “harm.”
For more than five decades, federal policy under the Endangered Species Act has interpreted “harm” to include any significant modification or degradation of habitat that impairs an animal’s ability to feed, shelter, or reproduce.
In 1995, the Supreme Court affirmed this broader interpretation, rejecting property owners’ arguments that “harm” should be limited to direct killing or injury.
On Friday, the Interior and Commerce departments issued a final rule that rescinds this interpretation, stating that destroying an endangered species’ nest or habitat will no longer be deemed illegal.
The rule could enable fossil‑fuel companies, agricultural interests, land developers, and others to disturb or destroy habitats of vulnerable species. With many species already facing dwindling habitats, experts warn the rule will increase pressure on them.
Earthjustice announced it would pursue legal challenges. If the case reaches the current Supreme Court, its conservative majority could cement the change, limiting future administrations’ ability to reverse it, according to Karrigan Börk, an environmental law professor at UC Davis.
This action represents the latest in a series of aggressive steps by the administration to roll back environmental regulations aimed at combating climate change and preventing species extinction. In March, officials voted to exempt Gulf of Mexico oil and gas drilling from protections for endangered whales and other imperiled species.
The agencies contended they were restoring the Endangered Species Act to its intended scope, asserting that environmental groups and Democratic administrations had increasingly used the law to block drilling and development nationwide.
“For years, federal agencies abused the E.S.A. to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. “That approach turned routine activity into a regulatory trap, drove up costs that impacted people’s lives, and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended.”
The National Mining Association, a trade group, praised the announcement.
“Our industry is committed to conserving and recovering threatened and endangered species and their habitats; however, the definition of ‘harm’ has historically been misused to impede essential projects,” said Tawny Bridgeford, the association’s general counsel and senior vice president.
Legal scholars noted that the government proceeded without conducting scientific research on the change’s impacts — a step typically required before such regulatory actions.
“The change undermines the fundamental purpose of the Endangered Species Act,” said Lynn Scarlett, who served as deputy interior secretary under President George W. Bush.
Modifying habitat can easily harm individual animals without directly killing or injuring them, said Gary Frazer, who directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s endangered species program for two decades until his retirement in 2025.
Piping plovers, for example, require undisturbed beaches to nest and raise chicks. Although they migrate south for winter, a property owner could develop a beach during that period without directly harming any individual plovers. When they return in spring, however, they would lack suitable habitat for feeding, nesting, and chick rearing.
Consider the red‑cockaded woodpecker, a non‑migratory species that depends on mature pine trees to create hollow cavities for roosting families. Even if a timber company or developer clears such trees without directly injuring birds, the loss of these trees could jeopardize the species’ survival.
Amphibians such as the California tiger salamander start life in seasonal ponds and later move to upland burrows. Draining a pond in summer would leave returning salamanders without the water they need to reproduce.
“We stand on the brink of losing 50 years of wildlife protection progress because the primary threats to most animals are not direct killings but habitat loss,” said Justin Pidot, an environmental‑law professor at the University of Arizona and former counsel to the White House Council on Environmental Quality under the Biden administration.
When the rule was proposed last year, it generated approximately 220,000 public comments, 99 % of which opposed the change, according to a New York Times analysis that employed artificial‑intelligence techniques.
Some state wildlife agencies in Republican‑led states also urged the administration to reconsider.
‘Threatened and endangered species depend entirely on healthy habitats,’ wrote Bruce Kreft, chief of the Conservation and Communications Division of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, adding that the proposal would have dire consequences.
Ted Will, then director of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources’ Wildlife Resources Division, wrote that ‘the greatest threat to the majority of species of highest conservation need in Georgia, whether federally listed or not, is habitat loss.’
Attorneys general from 16 states — including Arizona, California, Illinois, and New York — described the rationale as ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law.’
Industry groups supporting the change argued that ‘harm’ must involve direct injury to a specific animal, while the National Mining Association noted that its members have been compelled to adjust business practices to account for potential impacts on habitats, even when the species has not been formally identified.
Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of commenters were individual citizens urging the government to reconsider.
‘Everyone knows a species cannot live without its habitat,’ wrote Ashleigh Smith of Port Angeles, Washington.
Environmental lawyers and activists noted that projects are seldom blocked solely by habitat restrictions; instead, affected parties are typically required to develop ‘habitat conservation plans’ that outline anticipated impacts and mitigation measures.
Under the new rule, permits would still be required for actions that directly kill or bury endangered animals, but not for activities such as tree felling or river pollution that indirectly affect species. This could lead landowners to adopt fewer protective measures and contribute less to offsetting impacts elsewhere.
‘Many of our endangered species are on the brink,’ Dr. Börk said. ‘If we lose a species, it is gone forever.’
