The Trump administration on Wednesday launched a long-awaited and far-reaching bid to change how the Endangered Species Act works, with an ambitious set of regulatory proposals longed for by conservatives and loathed by environmentalists.
The proposals would govern how the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries handle their most important ESA tasks, from designating critical habitat to setting protection standards for threatened species. If made final, they would reverse myriad regulations set during the Biden administration and restore rules from President Donald Trump’s first term.
“This administration is restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent, protecting species through clear, consistent and lawful standards that also respect the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement.
Burgum added that the proposed revisions “end years of legal confusion and regulatory overreach, delivering certainty to states, tribes, landowners and businesses” while still protecting vulnerable species and habitat.
The package released Wednesday is part of a broader Trump administration effort to revamp implementation of the Endangered Species Act, such as a proposal earlier this year to shrink the definition of “harm” as it is applied to a listed species. FWS and NOAA Fisheries suggested removing habitat modification from counting as harm to an animal or plant protected by the law.
With environmental organizations quickly mobilizing to oppose the rule changes, there will be months, if not years, of robust public commentary and likely lots of litigation ahead. The Biden administration’s rule changes that Trump intends to replace were finalized in April 2024 after federal agencies reported receiving more than 146,000 public comments.
“Trump’s proposals are a death sentence for wolverines, monarch butterflies, Florida manatees and so many other animals and plants that desperately need our help,” said Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity.
Kurose added that “Americans overwhelmingly support the Endangered Species Act and want to see it strengthened, not sledgehammered.”
The proposed regulatory changes released Wednesday include:
- Removing Biden-era rule language that specified ESA listing decisions must be made “without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination.” While the law will still require that listings be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, removing the “without reference” language will allow for cost-and-benefit studies to be conducted for the public to consider.
- Removing the Fish and Wildlife Service’s use of a “blanket 4(d) rule” that automatically gives all threatened species the same strict level of protection as species designated as endangered. Under the Trump administration proposal, every threatened species would have a tailored protection plan that could allow for specified exceptions to the ESA ban on harming listed species.
- Revising the factors taken into account when an agency designates critical habitat. The proposal highlights an assortment of national security and economic impact categories that could keep an area from being designated as critical habitat.
- Removing a Biden-era rule that allowed FWS to compel a project proponent to “offset” and not simply mitigate impacts to listed species’ habitat.
“These actions reaffirm our commitment to science-based conservation that works hand in hand with America’s energy, agricultural and infrastructure priorities,” said FWS Director Brian Nesvik.
Jonathan Wood, the vice president of law and policy at the market-focused Property and Environment Research Center, celebrated the proposed changes. He specifically praised “rescinding the illegal, unscientific, and ineffective blanket rule as a necessary course correction to strengthen species recovery.”
All of the proposed changes come as the two federal agencies involved cope with significant personnel cuts imposed by the Trump administration, causing some skeptics to question how they will carry out the new proposals.
“The Service has lost 20 percent of its staff and 32 percent of its budget. How will it carry out its statutory obligations? Never mind recovery,” said Pat Parenteau, professor of law emeritus at the Vermont Law and Graduate School.
