US government reverses longstanding endangered species regulation, opens habitats to development

The U.S. Interior and Commerce Departments have altered a long-standing regulation defining "harm" to endangered species habitats, a move environmentalists are challenging as illegal and scientifically unfounded. The changes, approved on July 10, reverse a definition that had been in place for over 50 years and was previously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“

There is no support for the Trump Administration’s rule, no scientific support, no legal support, no public support.

Environmental groups argue that the original definition, which prohibited "habitat modification or degradation," was crucial for protecting species. Kristen Boyles, an attorney with Earthjustice, stated, "There is no support for the Trump Administration’s rule, no scientific support, no legal support, no public support." Oceana Senior Campaign Director Gib Brogan emphasized that "habitat loss is the number one cause of extinction" and removing habitat protections weakens the law's safeguards.

“

Habitat loss is the number one cause of extinction. When you remove habitat protections, you remove one of the law’s most important safeguards.

Conversely, officials from the Interior and Commerce Departments have framed the revision as a necessary correction to federal overreach. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum described the previous definition as a "regulatory trap" that "drove up costs" and "expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended." Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick called the changes "common sense," asserting they remove "overly broad and burdensome regulations" that previously obstructed lawful land use for American families and businesses.

“

[The law] drove up costs that impacted people’s lives, and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended. For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses.

The departments maintain that the revisions will preserve "core protections" for endangered species and avoid actions that directly harm or kill listed wildlife. However, the reversal opens sensitive habitats to potential business development, a move critics fear will significantly increase extinction risks.

“

common sense