The Trump administration announced Friday that it is rolling back a longstanding protection for endangered species, arguing the change will reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and speed approvals for projects that have faced delays under previous interpretations of federal law.
The administration said it is repealing an earlier definition of prohibited “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), reversing a regulation that had broadened the types of actions considered unlawful when they affected endangered animals and plants.
Under the previous definition, prohibited “harm” included significant modifications to a species’ habitat if those changes ultimately “actually kill or injure wildlife” by interfering with essential needs such as food, shelter, or breeding opportunities.
Administration officials said the change is intended to streamline project approvals by eliminating what they described as an outdated regulatory framework that has slowed lawful development and expanded federal oversight beyond what Congress intended.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum defended the decision in a statement, arguing that federal agencies have relied on the Endangered Species Act in ways that exceeded its original purpose.
“For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” Burgum said.
He argued that the previous approach transformed ordinary land use into what he described as a regulatory obstacle.
“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,” Burgum added.
The administration maintained that repealing the earlier definition will help remove delays affecting projects that otherwise would have faced additional scrutiny under the prior regulations.
Environmental advocates, however, warned that eliminating the existing definition could have significant consequences for endangered wildlife and plant species by weakening protections for the habitats on which they depend.
Critics of the move argued that habitat destruction can have severe impacts on vulnerable species, even if the animals or plants are not directly harmed at the moment development occurs.
Kristen Boyles, an attorney with the environmental advocacy organization Earthjustice, warned that the policy change could make it easier for projects to move forward despite posing risks to endangered species and their habitats.
“What is at risk is truly harmful projects that will imperil species slipping through the cracks [and] being allowed to go forward,” Boyles said.
Boyles indicated that Earthjustice intends to challenge the administration’s decision in court.
According to Boyles, the organization plans to file a lawsuit seeking to block the repeal of the previous definition.
The announcement sets up what is likely to become another legal battle over the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, with the administration arguing the change restores the law to its intended scope while environmental advocates contend it removes an important safeguard for at-risk wildlife and plants.
At the center of the dispute is the definition of what constitutes prohibited “harm” under the Endangered Species Act. The Trump administration argues the previous interpretation imposed unnecessary regulatory burdens and delayed lawful projects, while opponents contend that repealing it could allow developments to proceed even when they significantly alter habitats that endangered species rely upon for survival.
With Earthjustice preparing legal action, the administration’s rollback is expected to face judicial scrutiny as the debate over endangered species protections continues.
