President Donald Trump, in an April proposed rule, has directed the Secretary of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to rescind the long-standing definition of “harm” to species covered by the federal Endangered Species Act. The existing definition of harm as the ESA is currently written, the Administration says, is contrary to the “best meaning” of the term “take.”
The proposal, in essence, says that habitat modification should not be considered harm because it is not the same as intentionally targeting a species, called “take.”
Environmentalists say that the definition of “take” has always included actions that harm species, and the definition of “harm” has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“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 Noah Greenwald, co-director of endangered species at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This administration’s greed and contempt for imperiled wildlife know no bounds, but most Americans know that we destroy the natural world at our own peril. Nobody voted to drive spotted owls, Florida panthers or grizzly bears to extinction.”
The ESA prohibits “take” of endangered species by any person, including individuals, government entities and corporations, the Center wrote in a news release. Take has been defined to include actions that “harm” endangered species through “significant habitat modification or degradation.”
The Administration’s proposal would fully rescind this definition, the Center wrote. That would open “the door for industries of all kinds to destroy the natural world and drive species to extinction in the process.”
While the proposed rule could drastically change how habitat protections are considered for threatened and endangered species listed under the ESA, according to the Center, an April 17 Federal Register posting of the proposal says that the Administration is simply adhering to the meaning of the ESA.
“The existing regulatory definition of ‘harm,’ which includes habitat modification, runs contrary to the best meaning of the statutory term ‘take.’ We are undertaking this change to adhere to the single, best meaning of the ESA,” an April 17 Federal Register posting says (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/17/2025-06746/rescinding-the-definition-of-harm-under-the-endangered-species-act).
The Federal Register posting seeks public comment on Trump’s April 15 proposal. Comments are due by May 19. If the proposal is finalized, the Administration plans to take the next step and submit an Executive Order to solidify the proposal.
“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 Federal Register says.
The ESA was passed by Congress in 1973, designating two agencies to share the responsibility for administering the law: Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries).
Habitat destruction is the biggest cause of extinction and this definition of harm has been pivotal to protecting and recovering endangered species, the Center wrote.
“It was upheld in the Supreme Court case Babbitt v. Sweet Home – 515 U.S. 687 (1995). The inclusion of habitat destruction in the prohibition on take has been critical to saving species. It’s a key difference between the federal Endangered Species Act and almost all state endangered species laws.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babbitt_v._Sweet_Home_Chapter_of_Communities_for_a_Great_Oregon)
“Without a prohibition on habitat destruction, spotted owls, sea turtles, salmon and so many more imperiled animals won’t stand a chance,” said Greenwald. “Trump is trying to drive a knife through the heart of the Endangered Species Act. We refuse to let him wipe out America’s imperiled wildlife, and I believe the courts won’t allow this radical assault on conservation.”
A report by the Center called “Trump’s Extinction Proposal,” says that “The proposal has profound, life-altering implications for endangered animals in the United States that are currently protected under the Endangered Species Act” (https://biologicaldiversity.org/publications/papers/Trumps-Extinction-Proposal.pdf).
“Habitat loss is a key driver of extinctions around the globe and in the United States. The protection of habitat has therefore been a crucial element in preventing extinction for species protected under the Act,” the Center’s report says.
According to the report, the ESA prohibits “take” of endangered species by individuals, government entities and corporations. Take has been defined to include actions that “harm” endangered species through “significant habitat modification or degradation.”
“This definition of harm has been pivotal to protecting and recovering endangered species and preventing the destruction of their most important habitat,” the report says. “It was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995. The Trump administration’s extinction proposal would fully rescind this definition, opening the door for industries to mine, log, bulldoze, drain, pollute and otherwise destroy habitat that’s fundamental to the survival of endangered species.”
The Center’s report lists 10 species at risk of extinction due to the Executive Order and one of those species is Chinook salmon.
Nine populations of Chinook salmon are protected under the ESA. Salmon have declined in numbers since the 1800s from habitat destruction, such as “indiscriminate logging, development, dams, river diversion and dramatic reductions in coastal wetlands,” the report says. “The Snake River once supported Chinook runs of half a million fish each autumn but this once-mighty population had a run of only 78 fish in 1990 and remains at less than 10% of its historic numbers today.”
Salmon rely on clear, cool water and connected habitat for them to complete their juvenile and adult migration, but under Trump’s proposed rule, salmon will no longer be protected, says the Center.
“The Trump administration is threatening the survival of some of America’s most iconic animals with this devastating habitat proposal,” Greenwald said. “You simply can’t protect species without protecting the places they live, and Trump’s radical plan might be the end of the Florida panther or the spotted owl. It’s incredibly sad and disturbing to see this administration pressing fast-forward on the extinction crisis.”
According to the Environment and Energy Law Program at Harvard University this matters because, while the ESA provides protections for threatened and endangered species, the level of protection given to each species and the number of species protected depends on how agencies interpret the Act and apply it through regulations. Those regulations, the Harvard Program says, contain detailed definitions and the steps that federal agencies need to take to apply the protections in the Act to species and their habitats. “The regulations are the ‘how-to’ guide that upholds the purpose of the Endangered Species Act, ‘to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend,’” it says.
In an Environmental Law blog, The National Law Review says that Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the “take” of any endangered species.
Under the ESA, “take” means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Existing regulations further define “harm” as “an act that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife … [including] significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering,” the Review says.
Trump, through NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is proposing “to eliminate the regulatory definition of “harm,” leaving only the statutory definition of “take,” which the Services said they interpret as prohibiting only affirmative acts that are intentionally directed toward particular members of a listed wildlife species,” the Law Review says. “Actions that could indirectly harm listed wildlife by modifying their habitat would no longer be prohibited by the ESA, removing a significant source of potential liability for projects that involve clearing, grading, vegetation removal and similar activities.
“While effects on listed species’ habitat still could trigger a federal agency’s obligation to consult with the Services under Section 7 of the ESA, many projects lacking a federal “handle” such as a federal approval or funding, likely would be able to forgo seeking ESA authorization,” the Law Review concludes.