Trump Admin Rewrites Endangered Species Act Rules — SkimNews
Get the Energy newsletter
Daily energy & climate — solar, EVs, oil, the policy fights and tech bets shaping the transition. Free.
- Trump administration revised the interpretation of 'harm' and 'take' under the Endangered Species Act, allowing incidental killing of protected species if not intentional.
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a directive stating that damaging an animal’s habitat no longer constitutes 'harming' it, weakening enforcement of the law.
- Brian Nesvik signed a memo asserting that actions like striking a whale or felling a tree with roosting bats are not 'takes' unless done purposefully.
- Supreme Court precedent in Babbitt v. Sweet Home (1995) previously ruled habitat modification counts as harm, contradicting the administration’s current stance.
- Environmental groups, including Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council, argue the reinterpretation defies 50 years of legal understanding and will be challenged in court.
- Center for Biological Diversity’s Brett Hartl dismissed the memo as legally flimsy and accused the agency of reducing the law to an 'anti-poaching statute'.
- Species like the Florida panther and California sea otter, which lack designated critical habitat, now face heightened risk due to reliance on broad statutory language.
Why it matters: Industries gain leeway to operate in sensitive areas without violating the Endangered Species Act, but species dependent on broad protections lose crucial safeguards—potentially reversing decades of recovery efforts. The shift creates legal uncertainty for companies relying on stable regulations, with courts likely to decide the final meaning.
Ask SkimNews
