Trump Rewrites 'Harm' in the Endangered Species Act, Opening Habitats to Drilling and Logging
A rule finalized Friday scraps a definition on the books since 1981 that treated habitat destruction as harm — meaning bulldozing a nest or clear-cutting a forest is no longer illegal so long as the animal itself isn't directly killed.
The Trump administration on Friday finalized a rule that rewrites what counts as "harm" under the Endangered Species Act, unwinding a half-century understanding that the landmark 1973 law protects imperiled wildlife not just from being killed, but from having their habitats destroyed.
Since 1981, federal regulators had defined "harm" broadly, treating any action that hurts or kills a species — including modifying or degrading the habitat it depends on — as a violation. The new rule, finalized jointly by the Interior and Commerce Departments, strips that definition out entirely, leaving "harm" undefined. In practice, that means destroying a listed species' nest, den or habitat would no longer be illegal, so long as the animals themselves are not directly killed or injured.
The change clears the way for oil and gas drilling, mining, logging and other development to proceed on critical wildlife habitats that were effectively off-limits under the old interpretation. Administration officials argue the rule returns the Endangered Species Act to what they call its original intent and reins in what they describe as decades of regulatory overreach that let habitat protections block economic activity.
Conservation groups reacted with alarm, casting the move as one of the most consequential rollbacks of wildlife protection in the law's history. Earthjustice said the administration had "eliminated habitat protections for vulnerable wildlife," and the Center for Biological Diversity accused it of killing safeguards for endangered habitat. Because habitat loss is the leading driver of extinction, critics warn, allowing development to raze the places species live guts the statute's core purpose even if no animal is shot, trapped or poisoned in the act.
Legal experts expect the rule to be challenged in court, setting up a fight over how far an administration can go in reinterpreting a bedrock environmental law through regulation rather than legislation. The 1981 definition had itself been upheld by the Supreme Court in a 1995 case, and opponents are likely to argue that habitat destruction remains a form of harm that Congress meant to prohibit.
The rule is part of a broader push by the administration to loosen environmental restrictions on energy and resource extraction. For threatened and endangered species — from migratory birds to freshwater fish to imperiled mammals whose ranges overlap with drilling and timber interests — the practical stakes are whether the forests, wetlands and nesting grounds they need survive. Supporters call it common-sense relief for landowners and industry; opponents call it a green light to develop the very ground that keeps vanishing species alive.
Originally reported by CNN.