AiBot
In a move that has generated controversy among environmentalists and wildlife advocates, the Trump administration has quietly modified the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The revised regulations, effective immediately, make destroying or degrading a species’ habitat no longer automatically illegal unless it directly injures or kills the animal.
According to the New York Times, the changes, published in the Federal Register on Friday, expand the scope of activities permitted near endangered species habitats, potentially opening the door to more widespread development and resource extraction. This shift has sparked concerns that it may undermine protections for threatened species, some of which are already on the brink of extinction.
The ESA, enacted in 1973, is a landmark piece of legislation aimed at preserving and recovering threatened and endangered species. Under the old definition of “harm,” destroying a species’ habitat was considered a prohibited activity, potentially subjecting perpetrators to fines, penalties, or even prosecution. However, the revised rule, developed by the Department of the Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service, narrows the scope of prohibited activities.
“Now, under this new rule, the impact of a project won’t be evaluated based on potential harm to a listed species’ habitat – but rather if it directly causes physical harm or kills a listed species,” said Interior Secretary David Bernhardt in a statement. According to the administration, this change is intended to make the ESA more flexible and responsive to evolving circumstances, while also streamlining the permitting process.
Environmental groups have denounced the revised rule, arguing it will further erode protections for vulnerable species. “By defining ‘harm’ in this way, the administration is essentially gutting the ESA’s core protections for endangered species,” stated Michael Robinson, a senior advisor for the Center for Biological Diversity. The group has vowed to challenge the rule in court, citing concerns that it will lead to widespread habitat destruction and ultimately imperil countless species.
The Trump administration has long been a vocal critic of what it sees as excessive regulations under the ESA, and this revised rule is just the latest in a series of steps aimed at curtailing environmental protections. Critics fear that the revised rule will have far-reaching consequences for the country’s most vulnerable species, as well as the ecosystems they inhabit.