Federal agencies are proposing a narrow interpretation of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act, which could threaten crucial habitats and endanger wildlife across the U.S.
Proposed Changes to Endangered Species Act Raises Alarm Among Environmental Advocates
Proposed Changes to Endangered Species Act Raises Alarm Among Environmental Advocates
The Trump administration seeks to redefine "harm" in regards to endangered species, potentially weakening longstanding habitat protections.
The Trump administration has unveiled a plan to revise the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by altering the definition of "harm." This proposed change, announced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, seeks to eliminate longstanding protections for wildlife, particularly in relation to habitat destruction.
Advocates for the environment express grave concerns, warning that habitat loss is a leading cause of species extinction. The administration argues that the current interpretation is excessively broad and burdensome for businesses involved in logging, drilling, and development. They are advocating for a stricter definition of harm, which would limit protection for endangered species to only intentional acts of killing or injuring animals.
Critics, including Andrew Bowman, president of Defenders of Wildlife, call this proposal the most significant regression for the ESA since its enactment in 1973. They argue that limiting protections from habitat loss contributes to the ongoing risk of extinction for many vulnerable species. The proposed rule has sparked widespread debates about the government’s commitment to biodiversity and environmental stewardship as it prioritizes economic growth over ecological preservation.
