The Trump administration's new proposal seeks to redefine 'harm' in a way that many argue could threaten habitat protections under the Endangered Species Act.
Trump Administration Proposes Significant Changes to Endangered Species Act
Trump Administration Proposes Significant Changes to Endangered Species Act
The potential redefinition of 'harm' may lead to diminished protections for endangered species.
In a significant shift regarding wildlife protection, the Trump administration has unveiled plans to alter the definition of “harm” as it concerns the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This proposed rule, issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service alongside the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, would remove the long-held interpretation encompassing habitat destruction from the definition of harm, placing greater emphasis solely on direct actions that result in the killing or injury of species.
Administration officials contend that the current broad interpretation has constrained business interests, asserting that it imposes excessive burdens on entities seeking permits for drilling, logging, and development activities. By adopting a narrower definition, they aim to facilitate easier access to permit acquisition for various industrial projects. However, this move has drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists and advocates for wildlife conservation.
The alteration is viewed as particularly perilous since habitat loss is recognized as the primary driver for the extinction of countless species. Andrew Bowman, the president of the Defenders of Wildlife, characterized the proposal as a substantial step back for the ESA, which was originally enacted in 1973 to safeguard endangered and threatened species against various forms of harm, including habitat degradation.
Environmental groups worry that this proposed rule would undermine the validity of protections that many threatened species rely upon to survive. The implications of this move can trigger debates on whether protecting economic development outweighs the critical need to conserve biodiversity and ecosystems.
Administration officials contend that the current broad interpretation has constrained business interests, asserting that it imposes excessive burdens on entities seeking permits for drilling, logging, and development activities. By adopting a narrower definition, they aim to facilitate easier access to permit acquisition for various industrial projects. However, this move has drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists and advocates for wildlife conservation.
The alteration is viewed as particularly perilous since habitat loss is recognized as the primary driver for the extinction of countless species. Andrew Bowman, the president of the Defenders of Wildlife, characterized the proposal as a substantial step back for the ESA, which was originally enacted in 1973 to safeguard endangered and threatened species against various forms of harm, including habitat degradation.
Environmental groups worry that this proposed rule would undermine the validity of protections that many threatened species rely upon to survive. The implications of this move can trigger debates on whether protecting economic development outweighs the critical need to conserve biodiversity and ecosystems.
