Trump administration's revision of ESA 'harm' definition faces multiple lawsuits

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries announced a rule change that removes the long-standing definition of "harm" in the Endangered Species Act, which previously included significant habitat modification or degradation. The revision, effective Sept. 14, is being challenged in federal court by Earthjustice, several environmental organizations, and the Swinomish and Squaxin Island tribes, who argue that the change could weaken protections for species that depend on critical habitat.

"The agencies haven't explained themselves adequately," attorney Kristen Boyles said, adding 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 increased litigation over projects that affect habitat.

The tribes contend that habitat loss has driven declines in ESA-listed salmon in Puget Sound and that the rule change would harm tribal members. Industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute and the Associated General Contractors of America, praised the revision, saying it reduces regulatory burdens and supports energy 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.

Legal experts note that the previous definition was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1995, which affirmed that habitat modification constitutes "harm" under the ESA. Critics of the new rule describe it as arbitrary and capricious, arguing that protecting habitat remains essential to preventing species extinction.