Trump Guts the Endangered Species Act to Clear Path for Drilling and Development

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

On Friday, President Donald Trump’s administration finalized a rule narrowing just how the federal government interprets the word “harm” under the Endangered Species Act, a change that environmental groups warn could make it easier for development projects to move forward in habitats occupied by threatened and endangered wildlife.

According to The New York Times, the rule rescinds a decades-old interpretation that treated significant habitat destruction as a prohibited form of harm, as it oftentimes kills or injures protected species by interfering with their ability to feed, breed, or find shelter. Under the new rule, damaging or destroying habitat alone would no longer automatically mean you’ve broken the law.

The Departments of the Interior and Commerce argued the change restores the law to its intended scope, saying prior administrations had stretched the statute beyond what Congress envisioned.

“For years, federal agencies abused the E.S.A. to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. “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.”

The move marks another significant environmental rollback by the Trump administration, which has already taken steps to ease restrictions on oil and gas development.

Environmental organizations quickly blasted the decision and signaled legal challenges are on the way, with Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles telling the Times that the rule appears to conflict with both other language in the Endangered Species Act itself and a 1995 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the broader interpretation of “harm.”

The proposal, which began last year, generated roughly 220,000 public comments before being finalized, with the Times reporting that an artificial intelligence analysis found about 99 percent opposed the change. Attorneys general from 16 states also argued the administration’s rationale was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”

Industry groups, however, including the American Petroleum Institute, backed Trump’s new and narrower interpretation.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!