Trump Administration Strips Habitat Protections from ESA

The Trump administration on Friday finalized a rule rescinding a 50-year-old regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), effectively removing habitat protections for threatened and endangered wildlife across the United States. The change allows oil and gas drilling, mining, logging, and other development on critical wildlife habitats so long as animals are not directly killed or injured.

What Changed

For more than five decades, the ESA’s regulatory definition of “harm” included “habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” The new rule, finalized by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce, eliminates this definition entirely.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo as legal justification. That ruling limited federal agencies’ authority to interpret ambiguous environmental statutes, overturning the long-standing Chevron deference doctrine. According to the Department of the Interior, the prior definition was “an unlawful regulatory intrusion that interfered with private property rights.”

The change marks a significant departure from precedent. In 1995, the Supreme Court upheld the “harm” definition’s inclusion of habitat destruction in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, finding it supported by the ordinary meaning of “harm,” the purpose of the ESA, and congressional intent. The new rule effectively overrides that precedent through regulatory action.

Administration’s Rationale

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum defended the rule, stating that federal agencies had “abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses.” He added that the action “restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed.”

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the rule would benefit fishermen who had been “restrained” by overly broad regulations, while U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik insisted the administration could “protect species and respect communities at the same time.”

Environmental Groups Vow Legal Challenge

Environmental advocates immediately condemned the move. Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles said in a statement that “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.” Boyles vowed: “We will see the Trump administration in court.”

Aaron Weiss, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, called it “one of the most horrific attempts to harm wildlife in American history and a gift to the oil barons and foreign mining companies,” as reported by NPR.

Stephanie Kurose of the Center for Biological Diversity warned the rule would be “a death sentence for wolverines, monarch butterflies, Florida manatees and so many other animals and plants,” according to The Guardian.

Broader Context

Habitat destruction is considered the strongest driver of species loss globally. The ESA has been credited with saving iconic species — including the bald eagle, American alligator, and California condor — from extinction and has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species, preventing 99% of listed species from going extinct, according to a PeerJ study.

This rule is part of a broader push by the Trump administration to weaken ESA protections. In March 2026, the administration convened the Endangered Species Committee — known as the “God Squad” — which voted to exempt oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico from ESA protections, a decision that could affect two dozen marine species including whales and sea turtles.

Republicans rolled back several ESA provisions during Trump’s first term (2017-2021), only to have those moves reversed under President Joe Biden. A federal court earlier in 2026 struck down earlier Trump-era attacks on the ESA from his first term. The new rule was first proposed in April 2025 and drew hundreds of thousands of public comments opposing the change, along with opposition from U.S. Senators, tribes, scientists, and legal experts.

Public opinion strongly favors species protections. A 2023 poll found that 80% of registered voters favored full funding of the ESA, and 73% view biodiversity as important to their everyday lives, as The Guardian reported.

Analysis

The rule represents a fundamental shift in how the ESA is interpreted and enforced. By removing habitat from the definition of “harm,” the administration has opened the door to development activities — including logging, mining, and oil drilling — on lands that serve as critical refuges for imperiled species. Environmental advocates warn this could trigger a cascade of extinctions, as habitat loss is the primary driver of species decline worldwide.

Legal experts note that the rule tests the limits of the Loper Bright decision, which overturned the Chevron deference doctrine that had required courts to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The outcome of the expected legal challenge could set precedent for how agencies interpret other environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.

The administration counters that the rule will boost economic growth by reducing regulatory burdens on industry, and that direct protections against killing or injuring listed species remain intact. However, scientists argue that protecting animals without protecting the places they live is fundamentally insufficient for species survival.

What’s Next

Earthjustice and other environmental groups are preparing to challenge the rule in federal court. The legal battle will likely test the limits of the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision and could set precedent for how agencies interpret other environmental statutes.

The administration argues that direct protections for animals remain in place and that the rule will reduce unnecessary permitting and compliance costs for landowners, businesses, and local governments. Environmentalists counter that removing habitat protections ignores scientific consensus and could push vulnerable species toward extinction.

As the legal challenge unfolds, the fate of critical habitats — and the species that depend on them — hangs in the balance.