(CN) — The U.S. Department of the Interior on Wednesday proposed a rule that would redefine what it means to “harm” a threatened or endangered species and rescind nearly all their habitat protections across the country.
The deregulatory proposal issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service seeks to eliminate a “legally incorrect” definition of the term “harm” to threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) based on a belief that the definition is incompatible with the “best reading” of the 1973 law.
Narrowing the regulatory definition of “harm” would strip habitat destruction from the ESA’s prohibited actions, prompting outcry from conservationists who fear it would open the door to industrial destruction of places where endangered species live. Habitat degradation and destruction is a major factor in driving species toward extinction.
The landmark conservation law prohibits people, government entities and corporations from taking a listed animal without a permit. “Take” is defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect.”
Regulations define the term “harm” as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife,” including significant habitat modifications that might impair breeding, feeding or sheltering patterns.
The notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the agencies Wednesday says the existing regulatory definition of the term “harm” “runs contrary to the best meaning of the term ‘take’” in the ESA.
“Regulations previously promulgated by FWS expanded the ESA’s reach in ways that do not reflect the best reading of the statute, to prohibit actions that impair the habitat of protected species,” the proposal says.
The notice continues: “The ESA itself defines ‘take’ and further elaborating on one subcomponent of that definition—’harm’—is unnecessary in light of the comprehensive statutory definition.”
The proposed rule would undermine the effectiveness of the ESA in protecting endangered species, according to leading conservation groups including the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife and Earthjustice.
Noah Greenwald, co-director of endangered species at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the proposed rule was an attempt by the Trump administration to “drive a knife through the heart of the Endangered Species Act.”
“There’s just no way to protect animals and plants from extinction without protecting the places they live, yet the Trump administration is opening the flood gates to immeasurable habitat destruction,” said Greenwald.
Andrew Bowman, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, also objected to the proposal, noting that the “vast majority” of wildlife listed as endangered or threatened are on the list because of habitat loss.
“Despite the fact that the Endangered Species Act is America’s single greatest tool to prevent species extinction, has a 99% success rate and is supported across party lines and the country by 95% of the electorate, the Trump administration is hellbent on destroying it to further line the pockets of industry,” Bowman said in a statement.
Bowman warned the attempt to redefine “harm,” if successful, would “further imperil threatened and endangered species.”
Drew Caputo, a vice president of litigation at Earthjustice, called the proposal “misguided” and said the organization was “prepared to go to court to ensure that America doesn’t abandon its endangered wildlife.”
A representative for the Interior Department did not comment on the proposal when reached Wednesday afternoon.
The move to eliminate the longstanding definition appears to have been prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The justices overruled the Chevron doctrine previously applied to uphold the ESA’s definition of “harm” in the 1995 Babbit v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon case involving protections for the red-cockaded woodpecker.
The Chevron doctrine was a legal practice that instructed federal judges to defer to agencies’ interpretations of the law when a governing statute was ambiguous.
“We have concluded that our existing regulations, which still contain the definition of “harm” contested in Sweet Home, do not match the single, best meaning of the statute,” the proposal says. “As Justice Scalia’s dissent in Sweet Home explains, the regulations’ interpretation of the statutory language violates the noscitur a sociis canon, did not properly account for over a thousand years of history, and is inconsistent with the structure of the ESA.”
The push to rescind the definition is the latest in an ongoing campaign to alter the ESA.
Republicans in the U.S. House of Representative introduced the ESA Amendments Act in March, which House Committee on Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) says aims to streamline regulatory and permitting processes.
Conservation groups have called on members of Congress to oppose the bill, arguing it would further erode the law’s power by narrowing critical habitat designations, increasing the allowable “take” of threatened species and reducing federal agencies’ role in managing listed species.