Lawsuits and Bipartisan Letter Challenge New Rule Weakening Habitat Safeguards
A Trump administration rule that redefines 'harm' under the Endangered Species Act took effect, removing broad habitat protections for imperiled species on private lands. In response, 21 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit, and seven former agency leaders from both parties sent a letter urging the administration to reverse the change. Critics argue that protecting animals without their habitats contradicts decades of scientific consensus.
The rule, first proposed in April and finalized in July, rescinds a definition that had stood since the law's enactment in 1973. That definition treated habitat modification as a form of "harm" to protected species, making it the primary legal mechanism for safeguarding habitat on non-federal land.
The stakes are significant because habitat loss ranks as the leading cause of extinction, and the majority of listed species rely on private lands for survival—with a tenth found exclusively there. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum framed the change as correcting federal overreach that burdened landowners and families.
The rule could reshape development patterns across private lands, potentially accelerating habitat loss for species with no other refuge. Landowners may gain greater latitude for construction and resource extraction, while conservation groups and states face an uphill legal battle. The bipartisan nature of the opposition suggests the change may carry political costs, though the administration's property-rights framing could resonate with rural constituents who have long chafed at federal restrictions.