The U.S. government has redefined the meaning of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), no longer considering damage to a species’ habitat as harming its chance of survival.
The change could have a massive impact on U.S. commercial fishers, who often are tasked with avoiding habitats listed under the ESA to harvest fish and shellfish.
“President Trump is rescinding overly broad and burdensome regulations that have restrained our fishermen for too long,” Department of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a release. “We’re returning the ESA to its foundational purpose to ensure legitimate conservation goals are met without sacrificing economic growth and American prosperity.”
For decades, the U.S. has included a species’ habitat in its definition of harm, allowing the government to protect that habitat from human activities and infrastructure. The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, however, has argued that such a definition is expansive and unnecessarily blocked valuable economic activities.
“For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a release. “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. This action restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners, and follows the statute Congress actually passed.”
The Trump administration cited 2024 Supreme Court case Loper Bright v. Raimondo – wherein commercial fishers challenged a rule requiring them to pay for observers out of pocket – in announcing the change, arguing that the ruling “requires agencies to follow the single best meaning of a statute rather than contorting laws to fit political agendas.” In Loper Bright v. Ramondo, the Supreme Court vacated the longstanding Chevron deference, a legal precedent that largely saw courts deferring to federal agencies’ interpretations of the law. Using that ruling, the government claims that decades of prior administrations exceeded their authority in defining harm broadly enough to include habitat.
Conservation groups warn that the change could further endanger threatened species, such as ESA-listed salmon populations that are struggling to recover or sea turtles.
“Sea turtles are a long-lived species and we are just now beginning to see the positive impacts of strong implementation of the Endangered Species Act on their populations,” Sea Turtle Conservancy Policy Coordinator Stacey Gallagher said in a release. “Weakening their protections now, as they face new threats to their survival, could undo decades of progress. The habitats used by sea turtles - our beaches and waterways - bring in billions of dollars per year to our communities and will also suffer from this decision.”
Conservation legal firm Earthjustice plans to sue to vacate the rulemaking and restore the broader definition of harm.
“This broad attack on endangered wildlife is un-American and extremely unpopular,” Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles said in a release. “Unfortunately, it’s only the beginning of even more unwanted damage to come to the Endangered Species Act. Earthjustice will do everything in its power to protect and defend our wildlife and wild places.”
