Trump Administration Redefines “Harm” Under Endangered Species Act, Opening Habitats to Development

On Friday, July 10, 2026, the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Commerce finalized a rule that narrows the definition of “harm” in the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA). The revision limits “harm” to direct injury or killing of listed wildlife, removing habitat modification or degradation from the prohibited scope. Under the new rule, destroying an endangered species’ nest or altering its habitat is no longer illegal unless the action intentionally harms the animal itself. The agencies say the change will reduce permitting and compliance costs for energy producers, farms, miners, and other developers.

Trump Allows Habitat Destruction in Endangered Species RollbackNBC NewsCNNNew York Times

For more than five decades, federal agencies interpreted “harm” to include significant habitat alteration that could impair feeding, shelter, or breeding. The Supreme Court upheld that broader reading in 1995, rejecting property-owner arguments that “harm” should mean only direct killing. The Trump administration argues the prior definition constituted an “unlawful regulatory intrusion” that exceeded congressional intent. The rule draws on the 2024 Loper Bright v. Raimondo decision, which limited agencies’ deference in interpreting statutes.

Fox News (website)

• The ESA has protected over 1,700 species and prevented 99 percent of listed species from extinction.

The Guardian

• A 2023 poll found 80 percent of registered voters favor full ESA funding, and 73 percent view biodiversity as important to daily life.

The Guardian

• The 2019 IPBES assessment identified roughly 1 million species at risk, including 40 percent of amphibians and a third of reef-forming corals, marine mammals, and sharks.

The Guardian

• Habitat loss is identified as the leading driver of extinction; a 2021 study linked the spotted-owl listing to a loss of 16,000–32,000 timber jobs in the Pacific Northwest and northern California.

Fox News (website)

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the rule “restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed.” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick added that the change will benefit fishermen burdened by “overly broad and burdensome regulations.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service noted that actions directly injuring or killing listed wildlife remain prohibited.

NBC News

Environmental groups contend the rollback will enable habitat destruction that could push vulnerable species toward extinction. Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles warned that the rule “has no scientific, legal, or public support.” Aaron Weiss, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, called the change “one of the most horrific attempts to harm wildlife in American history.” The Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Western Priorities announced plans to sue, arguing that protecting species requires protecting the places they live.

The Guardian

• “For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” — Doug Burgum, Interior Secretary

NPR

• “For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food,” — Kristen Boyles, Earthjustice attorney

The Guardian

• “This is one of the most horrific attempts to harm wildlife in American history and a gift to the oil barons and foreign mining companies,” — Aaron Weiss, Center for Western Priorities executive director

NPR

• “Habitat loss is the number one cause of extinction,” — Gib Brogan, senior campaign director at Oceana

CNN

The administration frames the rule as a return to the ESA’s “original intent,” while the Supreme Court’s 1995 decision affirmed a broader interpretation that includes habitat impacts. No quantitative estimate of projected species losses under the new rule is provided, leaving a gap in assessing ecological consequences.

CNN

Environmental organizations have filed lawsuits challenging the rule, and the case may ultimately reach the Supreme Court, where the current conservative majority could uphold the narrower definition. The rule is slated for publication in the Federal Register early next week, initiating the formal regulatory rollout.

Fox News (website)