For more than 50 years, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has served as a landmark environmental protection law. By mandating the conservation of species threatened with extinction, it promoted biodiversity and ecosystem health before commercial development.
On Friday, the Trump administration rescinded a key interpretation of the ESA, eliminating its ability to protect endangered species’ habitats. Environmentalists called this change a major blow to conservation. 1,300+ species Everything from Yellowstone grizzly bears and Florida panthers to California condors and gray wolves are currently classified as endangered or threatened.
How does ESA work?
origin of Endangered Species ActPassed in 1973, there is a ban on harming species that are listed as endangered or threatened. It prohibits “taking” any of these animals, which means “harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, or attempting to engage in any such conduct.”
Since 1981, agencies such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have interpreted “loss” as “significant habitat modification or degradation”. For example, this means that cutting trees in the habitat of listed birds is prohibited under the Act – even if no birds die as a result. If a habitat alteration interferes with the reproductive ability of a listed species, this would also be a violation of the ESA.
removal of habitat protection
one in Rule Published on July 10, the Department of the Interior (DOI) rescinded that definition of harm. Essentially, this means that the ESA no longer protects the habitats of listed species. Directly killing or injuring listed species is still prohibited – but degrading their habitats is not.
The legal basis for this decision relates to the Chevron Doctrine, which was established by the Supreme Court in 1984.
This doctrine holds that “if federal statute is ambiguous or leaves administrative gaps, courts should defer to the regulatory agency’s interpretation,” according to Public Policy Institute of California. Essentially, experts at federal agencies had the ability to interpret laws passed by Congress, and courts had to adjudicate those decisions.
case of 2024 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo This theory was overturned. This decision shifted power from agencies to the courts. Agencies have less leeway and flexibility to create rules as part of their interpretation of laws.
DOI cited the decision overturning the harm definition: “This reform builds on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which requires agencies to follow the single best meaning of a statute rather than twisting it to fit a political agenda,” it said in a statement. Press release.
Trump officials cast the prior interpretation of losses in the ESA as a source of burdensome red tape. DOI believes this rule change will eliminate unnecessary permitting, reduce costs, and streamline development for businesses.
“For years, federal agencies have abused the ESA to hinder lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” DOI Secretary Doug Burgum said in a press release. “That approach turned routine activity into a regulatory trap, increased costs that impacted people’s lives, and expanded federal authority beyond Congress’ intent.”
This is not the first time Republicans have attempted to discredit the ESA. Congress was working to pass the ESA Amendments Act of 2025, which would have weakened the law. Speaker Mike Johnson unexpectedly pulled the bill from the House in April after widespread outrage.
environmentalists’ outrage
Many environmental and conservation groups immediately condemned the White House’s decision. The Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit, was concerned that the change would threaten endangered plants and animals.
Tara Zuardo, a senior campaigner at the center, said, “Habitat destruction is the number one threat to endangered species and Trump’s decision to eliminate the definition of loss is a death knell for America’s wildlife.” Press release. “If animals don’t have a place to live, they can’t survive. Spotted owls, Atlantic salmon, Florida panthers and thousands of other species need protection for the wild places where they make their homes.”
Earthjustice announced plans to fight the decision in court.
“The White House is paving the way for timber, oil, mining and other extractive industries, as well as governments and individuals, to destroy the habitats where endangered species live, even if habitat loss harms those species,” Earthjustice leaders said in a Press release. “This senseless rule has no scientific or legal basis – and it directly contradicts the Supreme Court decision that upheld the ESA’s harm definition 30 years ago. We will take the administration to court.”
