Trump Administration's Attack on ESA 'Harm' Definition Sparks Outrage and Lawsuits
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
The Biden administration's reversal of a Trump-era rollback on the Endangered Species Act's 'harm' definition has triggered legal action from environmental groups and Native tribes, while corporate interests cheer the weakening of vital protections.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries, under pressure from corporate lobbyists, have announced a rule change that strips away the long-standing, science-based definition of 'harm' in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This definition, which for decades included significant habitat modification or degradation, was a cornerstone of species protection. The revision, effective Sept. 14, is now being challenged in federal court by Earthjustice, a coalition of environmental organizations, and the Swinomish and Squaxin Island tribes. These groups argue that the Trump-era change, left in place by industry-friendly bureaucrats, could devastate species that rely on critical habitat, prioritizing profit over ecological survival.
'The agencies haven't explained themselves adequately,' attorney Kristen Boyles said, emphasizing that the decision 'goes against the fundamental purpose and spirit of the statute itself.'
'The one thing that this repeal of this rule is going to certainly do is cause complete confusion in the regulated community,' Boyles warned, predicting a surge in costly litigation as corporations exploit the weakened rules to destroy habitat.
The tribes, whose treaty rights and ways of life have already been battered by habitat loss and government neglect, contend that the rule change will further harm ESA-listed salmon in Puget Sound and devastate tribal members. Meanwhile, industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the Associated General Contractors of America shamelessly praise the revision, celebrating the removal of regulatory 'burdens' that protect our planet in favor of fossil fuel profits and unchecked development.
'We remain committed to supporting commonsense ESA policies that both protect wildlife and support American energy leadership,' said Holly Hopkins of the American Petroleum Institute, revealing the industry's true priorities.
Legal experts point out that the previous, habitat-inclusive definition was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1995, affirming that habitat modification constitutes 'harm' under the ESA. Critics of the new rule describe it as arbitrary, capricious, and a direct threat to the survival of endangered species, as protecting habitat is essential to preventing extinction.