Trump Administration Strips Habitat Protections from ESA

The Trump administration has finalized a rule that eliminates a half-century of habitat protections for endangered species, fundamentally reshaping how the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is enforced. The rule, finalized on July 10, 2026, by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce, rescinds the regulatory definition of “harm” that for 50 years included habitat modification or degradation that kills or injures wildlife. Under the new interpretation, destroying an endangered species’ nest, breeding ground, or feeding area will no longer be considered illegal “harm” under the law, according to NPR.

A 50-Year Precedent Reversed

Since 1975, federal regulations defined “harm” to include “habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” This definition was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1995 case Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, where the Court ruled it was a reasonable interpretation of the statute.

The administration’s justification rests on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron deference doctrine. The new standard requires agencies to follow the “single best meaning” of a statute rather than deferring to agency interpretations. As The Washington Times reported, Interior and Commerce departments concluded that the prior definition was “an unlawful regulatory intrusion that interfered with private property rights.”

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum defended the change, stating: “For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses. That approach turned routine activity into a regulatory trap, drove up costs that impacted people’s lives, and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended.”

Habitat Loss: The Primary Driver of Extinction

Environmental groups and scientists have condemned the move, pointing to overwhelming evidence that habitat destruction is the single biggest cause of species extinction. A 2019 study found that 81% of species listed as endangered between 1975 and 2017 were primarily threatened by habitat loss and degradation, while only 17% were primarily threatened by direct killing such as hunting or poaching, according to analysis by ecologists and legal experts in The Conversation.

Currently, more than 107 million acres of land in the United States are designated as critical habitat for ESA-listed species. The rule change opens these areas to oil and gas drilling, mining, logging, agriculture, and real estate development — so long as individual animals are not directly killed or injured.

“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,” said Kristen Boyles, an attorney with Earthjustice. “Let’s be clear: there is no support for the Trump administration’s rule — no scientific support, no legal support, no public support. We will see the Trump administration in court.”

A Broader Deregulatory Campaign

The rule change is part of a wider effort by the Trump administration to roll back environmental protections and boost energy extraction and industrial access. In March 2026, Trump convened the Endangered Species Committee — nicknamed the “God Squad” — to expand oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico, a decision that could affect two dozen marine species including whales and sea turtles.

Aaron Weiss, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, described the move as “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.

Legal Challenges Ahead

The ESA has been credited with preventing 99% of listed species from going extinct since its enactment in 1973, saving iconic species including the bald eagle, American alligator, and California condor. The law enjoys broad public support — a 2023 poll found 80% of registered voters favored full funding of the ESA, and 73% view biodiversity as important to their everyday lives.

Despite hundreds of thousands of public comments opposing the rule change, the administration proceeded without conducting the usual environmental impact analysis, according to the Federal Register notice. Conservation groups including Earthjustice, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Sierra Club have announced plans to sue, arguing the new definition violates the ESA’s statutory text and purpose.

The rule is expected to appear in the Federal Register on July 14, 2026, and will take effect 60 days after publication. Legal challenges are expected to be filed shortly thereafter, setting the stage for a courtroom battle that could determine the future of endangered species protection in the United States.

What to Watch For

As the rule takes effect, attention will focus on which species are most immediately threatened. Experts have identified wolverines, monarch butterflies, Florida manatees, northern spotted owls, desert tortoises, and Chinook salmon as particularly vulnerable. The outcome of expected lawsuits — and whether Congress might attempt to legislatively override the change — will determine whether this rollback stands or is reversed.