News summary produced by Claude AI
The federal government has officially rescinded the longstanding interpretation of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act, marking a significant shift in wildlife protection policy. For over 50 years, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service defined harm to include significant habitat modification or degradation that could impact a protected species’ ability to feed, reproduce, or shelter. The new interpretation removes habitat protection from the definition, a move the administration says restores common sense and reduces regulatory burdens on landowners and industry.
The rule change, set to take effect on September 14, has prompted immediate legal challenges. Earthjustice and more than a dozen environmental organizations filed suit in federal district court in Seattle against the Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries. Additionally, the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community and Squaxin Island Tribe filed a separate lawsuit, citing particular concerns about salmon habitat degradation in Puget Sound. Legal experts contend the change contradicts the fundamental purpose of the statute and warn it will create confusion in regulated industries while increasing litigation over individual projects.
The Endangered Species Act became law in 1973 under President Richard Nixon as a bipartisan effort to prevent wildlife extinction. The Supreme Court upheld the habitat protection interpretation in a landmark 1995 case, Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, ruling that habitat modification constitutes harm under the law. However, the Trump administration’s proposal, supported by industry groups including the American Petroleum Institute and construction contractors, argues that the new interpretation aligns with the statute’s original language and intent.
Opponents argue that habitat destruction is the primary driver of species extinction and that removing this protection substantially weakens the law’s effectiveness. Environmental law experts characterize the change as “arbitrary and capricious,” given the decades of legal precedent and biological evidence supporting habitat protection as essential to species survival. The competing interpretations of the single word “harm” are expected to generate substantial legal disputes over proposed projects nationwide.