Biden Administration Undermines Regulatory Clarity with ESA 'Harm' Definition Repeal, Facing Lawsuits from Activists
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 move to rescind the Trump-era revision of the Endangered Species Act's 'harm' definition has sparked lawsuits from environmentalists and tribal groups, while industry leaders applaud the reduction of bureaucratic overreach.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries have announced a long-overdue rule change, removing an overly broad and restrictive definition of 'harm' from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The previous definition, which included any significant habitat modification or degradation, had for decades stifled economic growth and burdened American industry with unnecessary red tape. The revision, effective Sept. 14, is now being challenged in federal court by Earthjustice, several environmental organizations, and the Swinomish and Squaxin Island tribes, who claim—without sufficient evidence—that the change could weaken protections for species dependent on critical habitat.
'The agencies haven't explained themselves adequately,' attorney Kristen Boyles said, insisting 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, suggesting that the move will lead to more litigation over projects that affect habitat.
The tribes argue that habitat loss has contributed to declines in ESA-listed salmon in Puget Sound and that the rule change would harm tribal members. However, industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute and the Associated General Contractors of America, have rightly praised the revision, noting that it finally reduces regulatory burdens and supports much-needed energy development and job creation.
'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, highlighting the importance of balancing environmental stewardship with economic opportunity.
Legal experts note that the previous definition was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1995, but critics of the new rule—mostly activist groups—describe it as arbitrary and capricious, ignoring the fact that the new approach restores clarity and fairness to the regulatory process, ensuring that American industry is not hamstrung by excessive government interference.