Trump administration rolls back a key protection for imperiled wildlife

The Trump administration finalized a rule that narrows the definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act, eliminating a key protection for imperiled wildlife. This change allows development activities like logging and oil drilling on critical habitats, as long as the animals themselves are not killed or injured. Environmentalists argue this will lead to habitat destruction and potential extinctions, while administration officials stated they are returning the law to its original intent and addressing private property rights concerns. This rollback is part of broader changes to wildlife protections pursued by the administration and follows a 2024 Supreme Court decision. The Endangered Species Act has been credited with helping species like the bald eagle recover.

The Trump administration has finalized a rule that repeals a key part of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), redefining "harm" to exclude habitat protection. This change, effective Friday, will allow development, logging, and mining in habitats critical to endangered species. For 50 years, the ESA protected both species and their environments, a definition previously upheld by the Supreme Court. Officials claim the rescinded rules were an "regulatory intrusion" on private property rights, despite widespread public support for strong ESA protections. Experts warn this move, which allows habitat modification, could severely harm species already facing extinction, as habitat destruction is the primary driver of species loss. Environmental groups plan to challenge the new interpretation in court.

Conservation groups have accused the Australian federal government of weakening proposed national environmental standards intended to protect threatened species and ecosystems. The latest draft standard, released for consultation, reportedly removes the requirement for developments to meet specific environmental objectives. Instead, developers would be considered compliant if they follow certain processes or principles in their environmental assessments, rather than demonstrating direct environmental outcomes. Environmental organizations, including the Wilderness Society and WWF-Australia, argue these changes undermine the original intent of the standards to reverse the decline of Australia's biodiversity and fail to provide adequate protection. They contend the draft is weaker than previous versions and contains loopholes that will not prevent extinction or habitat destruction.