The Trump administration is working on a proposal that may alter important habitat protections for endangered and threatened species. This decision has raised alarms among environmental advocates, who fear it could push some critically endangered species closer to extinction due to activities like logging, mining, and land development.
The core of the issue centers on the definition of “harm” as laid out in the Endangered Species Act. Traditionally, this definition has included the destruction or alteration of the habitats where these species thrive. According to experts, habitat destruction is a leading cause of species extinction. For instance, Noah Greenwald, who is the endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity, argues that changing the rules could significantly weaken the Act’s protections.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service, announced in a proposed rule that habitat changes should not be classified as harm. They argue that this is not the same as directly targeting a species, which is referred to as “take.” However, environmentalists contend this new interpretation ignores long-standing definitions upheld by the Supreme Court and could undermine the conservation efforts put in place over the years.
Critics like Greenwald warn that removing these definitions essentially leaves endangered species without adequate protection. For instance, he points to endangered species such as the spotted owl and the Florida panther, which currently benefit from strict regulations against habitat destruction. If the proposed changes go through, logging or development could happen without regard to any potential harm to these species, provided there is no direct intent to harm them.
The proposed changes are set to be published in the Federal Register, which will kick off a 30-day public comment period. A representative from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declined to provide comments on this issue, leaving many to speculate on the real impact of these new rules.
Should these proposals pass, environmental organizations are prepared to challenge the rules in court, according to Drew Caputo, an attorney with Earthjustice. He emphasizes the threat poses to decades of progress in protecting various species like bald eagles and manatees, arguing that the current regulations recognize that destroying habitats—like forests and wetlands—harms the species that depend on them.
Particularly concerning is the situation in Hawaii, which houses a significant portion of the nation’s endangered species despite its small land area. Maxx Philipps from the Center for Biological Diversity warns that loosening these protections could exacerbate the extinction crisis in the islands and damage the unique biological and cultural heritage.
Philipps mentioned the critical role of native bees that pollinate coastal plants. As development pressures increase, remaining habitats could further fragment, putting listed species like green sea turtles at risk of losing their homes. She poignantly asserts, “Habitat is life, right? And without it, there is no recovery, and without recovery, there is only extinction.”
