The Trump administration is considering a significant shift in the way we define “harm” to endangered species. This proposed rule change seeks to exclude threats to habitat from the definition, essentially paving the way for increased human activity in ecologically sensitive areas.
- Advertisement -
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the current definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) should not include “actions that impair the habitat of protected species.” This change has raised considerable concern among environmental groups.
Critics argue that this adjustment could permit timber, oil, mining, and other activities by both individuals and governmental entities to encroach upon the habitats of endangered species. As highlighted by Earthjustice, an environmental law organization, “For 50 years, the ESA has saved numerous species – including iconic American species like bald eagles, gray wolves, Florida manatees, and humpback whales – from extinction.”
Noah Greenwald, co-director for endangered species at the Center for Biological Diversity, added, “There’s just no way to protect animals and plants from extinction without protecting the places they live. Yet, the Trump administration is opening the floodgates to immeasurable habitat destruction.” He further emphasized, “Without a prohibition on habitat destruction, spotted owls, sea turtles, salmon, and so many more imperiled animals won’t stand a chance. Trump is trying to drive a knife through the heart of the Endangered Species Act.”
The proposal will be open for public comment for 30 days, giving concerned citizens an opportunity to voice their opinions. Since its enactment in 1973, the Endangered Species Act has played a crucial role in preserving iconic species such as the bald eagle and grizzly bear.
Former President Donald Trump campaigned on a platform aimed at rolling back environmental regulations that he felt hindered economic development. In February, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum called for proposals to unleash U.S. energy, which could potentially open fragile landscapes—ranging from the Arctic to the Grand Canyon, as well as national monuments—to exploitation. Just days later, Trump announced plans to cut approximately 65% of staff at the Environmental Protection Agency, signaling a considerable shift in environmental policy.
As this conversation unfolds, the implications for both wildlife conservation and economic activities remain critical points of discussion in the public sphere.
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International – Monitoring.
