US government weakens Endangered Species Act: New definition of "harm" allows interventions in habitats

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum explained as justification that federal agencies had abused the law for years to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses. "For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses," Burgum said in a statement. The government is thereby tying into a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that restricted the authority of federal agencies to interpret environmental laws.

Government's justification

The amendment had already been proposed in April 2025. Environmental organizations fought the proposal in vain. Aaron Weiss, executive director of the organization Center for Western Priorities, called it one of the worst attacks on wildlife in American history. "This is one of the most horrific attempts to harm wildlife in American history and a gift to the oil barons and foreign mining companies," Weiss said.

The current relaxation is part of a series of changes to species protection law made by the government under Trump. Already during Trump's first term, Republicans rolled back several provisions of the law; these steps were reversed under Democratic President Joe Biden. With the new definition of "harm," the government is once again intervening deeply in the protection regime.

Criticism from environmental advocates

Industry representatives and their Republican allies have long argued that the landmark 1973 environmental law is being interpreted too broadly and hinders economic growth. They criticized the previous definition of harm as an infringement on property rights. The government is now taking up this argument and speaks of a return to the original spirit of the law.

Animal welfare advocates see it differently. According to conservation organizations, habitat destruction is the greatest cause of species extinction. A weakening of protections for critical habitats could therefore have far-reaching consequences for threatened populations throughout the United States. The environmental organization Earthjustice is also among the critics of the new rule.

Political context and outlook

The intensification of the conflict between economic interests and environmental protection in the US is also evident in the political dimension: the current decision follows a pattern in which regulatory protections from the Biden era are being rolled back. Observers expect the new rule to be challenged in court in the coming months, as environmental groups have already announced legal action.

The consequences for species protection in the US are likely to become visible only in the medium term. Since habitat loss is considered the main cause of species extinction, experts fear that the relaxation could accelerate the decline of numerous already threatened populations. The government, on the other hand, points to the importance of economic development and argues that property rights must be given greater weight.