Full Breakdown
Trump Administration Redefines “Take” Under Endangered Species Act
By Drooid · · How we work
Revised Interpretation of “Take”
A recently obtained internal memo from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service changes how the Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines “take.” The memo states that accidental injury or death of an endangered animal—such as a vessel unintentionally striking a whale or a tree being felled without the purpose of harming roosting bats—is not considered a prohibited “take.” Previously, the ESA’s definition of “take” encompassed any act that harasses, harms, pursues, hunts, shoots, wounds, kills, traps, captures, or collects listed wildlife, regardless of intent. The memo, circulated to agency offices in September, reframes “take” to apply only to deliberate actions targeting protected species.
Related Regulatory Changes
In July, the administration also repealed a long-standing rule governing “critical habitat” designations, allowing exclusions if they would not cause a species’ extinction. Additionally, the Interior Department eliminated a Biden-era “blanket rule” that automatically treated all “threatened” species as “endangered” unless a specific 4(d) rule applied. The department announced that “threatened” species will now be treated appropriately as “threatened,” not “endangered.” A separate action rescinded the ESA’s definition of “harm,” though the department’s media office reiterated that the Act still prohibits the take of listed wildlife.
Official Position
The statement also clarified that rescinding the definition of “harm” does not eliminate the prohibition on take.
Legal Challenge and Opposition
Environmental organizations and a coalition of twenty states plus Washington, D.C., have filed lawsuits contesting the revisions, arguing that the narrowed definition undermines longstanding protections for endangered species. Critics contend that treating accidental harm as permissible could increase incidental mortality from commercial activities such as logging, development, and maritime operations.
Potential Impact
If the revised definitions stand, permits for activities that might incidentally affect endangered species could become less stringent, potentially reducing required conservation measures. The outcome of the pending litigation will determine whether the new interpretation reshapes how the United States balances development with wildlife protection.
