Redefining only one word can deprive endangered species of their ability to protect vital habitats

It doesn't make much sense to prohibit people from shooting threatened woodpeckers while allowing their deforestation to kill endangered salmon while allowing their dam to kill forests.

But that's exactly how the Trump administration proposes to explain by changing the way a word in the Endangered Species Act is interpreted.

For 50 years, the U.S. government interprets endangered species as actions to protect threatened and endangered species from direct killing or eliminating their habitat.

Most species on the edge of extinction are on the list because there is almost no place to survive. Their habitat was paved, burned or transformed. Habitat conservation is crucial to their survival.

As an ecologist and law professor, we have spent our entire career understanding of the law and science that helps the prosperity of species. We recognize that rules that have changed the Trump administration quietly proposed could potentially destroy the habitat of protected species in green light, making it nearly impossible to protect those endangered species.

The public who have long supported the Endangered Species Act must comment on the proposal by May 19, 2025.

Legal barriers

The Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, prohibits the “take” of “any endangered fish or wildlife”, including protected species that are damaged.

Since 1975, regulations have defined “hazard” as habitat destruction that kills or harms wildlife. Developers and Record Interests challenged this definition in the Supreme Court case in 1995, Babbitt v. Sweet Home Comparter of Communities of Communities of Great Oregon. However, the court ruled that the definition was reasonable and allowed federal agencies to continue using it.

In short, the law says “taking” includes hazards, which, under existing regulatory definitions, include indirect harm through habitat destruction.

The Trump administration is seeking to change the definition of “hazard” in a way that ignores habitat modifications.

This narrow definition will revoke the most important protection granted by the Endangered Species Act.

Why habitat protection is important

Habitat protection is the most important factor in the recovery of endangered species in the United States – much more than the result of direct killing alone.

A 2019 study looked at the causes of species being classified as dangerous between 1975 and 2017 and found that only 17% of people were primarily threatened with direct killing, such as hunting or poaching. 17% include iconic species such as Red Wolf, American Crocodile, Florida Panther and Grizzly.

In contrast, a staggering 81% are listed due to habitat loss and degradation. Chinook salmon, island fox, southwestern willow flycatcher, desert turtle and potentially extinct ivory-billed woodpecker are just a few examples. Globally, a 2022 study found that habitat loss threatens more than all other causes combined species.

As natural landscapes transform into agriculture or are taken over by urban sprawl, logging operations and oil and gas exploration, ecosystems become dispersed and the space needed for species to survive and reproduce disappears. Currently, more than 107 million acres of land in the United States are designated as key habitat for endangered species. Industry and developers have been calling for changes to the rules for years, believing that the rules have been weaponized to stop development. However, research shows that species around the world face unprecedented threats to human activities that destroy natural habitats.

Under the proposed changes, development can be accelerated in habitats of endangered species.

Burn endangered species law

Defining changes is a quiet way to gut endangered species.

It is also fundamentally incompatible with the purpose that Congress wrote in the bill: “Providing a means to preserve the ecosystems of endangered and threatened species and to provide protection for the protection of such endangered and threatened species.” It contradicts the Supreme Court’s precedent, which will undermine habitat protection in the bill.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum believes that the recent “de-extinction” of the terrifying wolf who changed 14 genes in the gray wolf genome means that the United States does not have to worry about species protection because technology “can help achieve a future where the population will never be at risk.”

However, changing the species that appear to be extinct is both expensive and a trivial alternative to protecting existing species.

The government also refuses to conduct the required analysis of the possible environmental impacts of the change definition. This means that the American people don’t even know the importance of this change to threatened and endangered species until it’s too late, although the approval will certainly be in court.

ESA is saving on species

The investigation found that the Endangered Species Act is very popular among the public, including the Republican Party. The Center for Biodiversity estimates that the Endangered Species Act has saved 99% of protected species from extinction since its inception, not only from bullets, but also from bulldozers. This regulatory rollback is designed to undermine the greatest force of the law: what is needed to protect the survival of habitat species.

Congress knew the importance of habitat when it passed the law and wrote a definition of “take” that allowed institutions to protect it.