The Trump administration announced a proposed rule on April 17 that would strip habitat protections for endangered species across the United States. The rule would change the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a move that would devastate countless species and allow for habitat destruction without consideration of species that would be impacted. 

In summary, the proposed rule states:  

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (we) are proposing to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” in our Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations. 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. 

The agencies are suggesting that changes or destruction to habitats should not be considered “harm” because the actions are not directly targeting imperiled species. “Harm” has long been understood to mean altering or destroying places where species live, whereas “take” refers to any action that injures or kills a listed species.  

Habitat destruction is the leading cause of extinction. In 2023, USFWS delisted 21 species from the ESA due to extinction – habitat destruction was the primary factor. An independent 2022 study found that 88.3% of species listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List were impacted by habitat destruction, and habitat destruction was the main factor pushing 71.3% of listed species toward extinction.

The long-upheld definition of harm has been crucial in protecting and recovering endangered species. When the definition of harm was challenged in a 1992, the District Court found “that Congress intended an expansive interpretation of the word ‘take,’ an interpretation that encompasses habitat modification.” The case was eventually heard by the Supreme Court in 1995 and the Court held that the definition of harm can include “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife.”

If implemented, endangered and threatened species would once again fall victim to habitat encroachment and destruction, setting back recovery. 

The public comment period closes on May 19.  

How would this impact wolves?  

If this rule goes into effect, wolves and countless other species could fall victim to habitat destruction. Hypothetically, logging could be approved in areas home to endangered wolves and because the action wouldn’t directly target wolves, there would be no recourse to stop the practice. The current interpretation of the ESA would not allow this action to occur, because logging would destroy (or at the very least significantly alter) habitat that is home to an endangered species.  

The Trump administration is targeting wildlife and the places they call home. Endangered species can’t survive without habitat protection.