Full Breakdown
Trump Administration Redefines “Harm” Under the Endangered Species Act
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Rule Change
In September, the Interior Department issued an internal memo that reinterprets the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA) definition of “take.” The new reading limits illegal conduct to actions that intentionally target a listed species, excluding accidental killings and habitat-related injuries. The rule took effect on a Monday following its publication and replaces a 50-year-old regulatory definition that treated habitat degradation that kills or injures wildlife as “harm.”
Background & Context
The ESA, enacted in 1973, has long prohibited “habitat modification or degradation” that could harm listed species. Since the 1970s, the agency’s “harm” definition has been the primary tool for protecting critical habitats from logging, development, and other land-use activities. The 2024 Loper Bright v. Raimondo decision affirmed that courts must assess whether an agency’s interpretation exceeds statutory authority, a precedent the Interior Department cites to justify the new rule. Conversely, the 1995 Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon decision upheld the inclusion of habitat destruction in the “harm” definition, a precedent environmental groups continue to rely on.
Legislative and Legal Pushback
A bipartisan coalition on Capitol Hill is mobilizing to block the change. In the Senate, Sens. Adam Schiff and Sheldon Whitehouse introduced a joint resolution that would allow a simple majority vote to overturn the rule. In the House, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R) and Rep. Mike Quigley (D) introduced legislation—dubbed the Safeguarding Endangered Species Act—to restore the prior definition. The bill has gained six additional Democratic cosponsors and remains pending in the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Separately, attorneys general from twenty states and the District of Columbia have filed a lawsuit challenging the rule’s legality, arguing that it contravenes the ESA’s statutory language and established case law.
Official Statements & Responses
The Interior Department framed the revision as a return to the ESA’s “actual text and original intent,” asserting that the change will eliminate “years of federal overreach.”
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum argued that previous agency interpretations “abused” the ESA, turning routine activities into “regulatory traps” that raised costs for landowners, small businesses, energy producers, farmers, ranchers, and local governments.
The Department also cited the Loper Bright v. Raimondo case, stating that courts must exercise independent judgment when evaluating agency authority, and that the prior “harm” definition represented an “unlawful regulatory intrusion” into private property rights.
Criticism & Opposition
Environmental advocates contend that habitat loss remains the leading cause of species endangerment. He referenced the Babbitt decision to argue that the Supreme Court has historically recognized habitat degradation as a form of “harm.”
Verbatim Quotes
- “For more than fifty years, our nation’s protections have reflected a basic legal, scientific, and commonsense truth: when habitat destruction actually kills or injures protected wildlife, that destruction is harm,” — Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, spokesperson
What’s Next
The Senate is expected to schedule a vote on the joint resolution introduced by Sens. Schiff and Whitehouse in the coming weeks. The House bill will proceed through the Natural Resources Committee before a full-chamber vote. Meanwhile, the multi-state lawsuit is moving through the federal courts, with a decision likely to shape the rule’s ultimate enforceability.