SouthernWorldwide.com – The Trump administration is rescinding a controversial rule under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that officials claim was previously “weaponized” to hinder energy production, logging, infrastructure development, and private land use. This move aims to return the interpretation of the ESA to its original intent, ending what is described as federal overreach.
The Interior and Commerce Departments announced on Friday the rescission of the regulatory definition of ‘harm’. This definition, according to officials, was expanded in past administrations to consider habitat modification as potential “harm” to protected species, thereby broadening the ESA’s scope beyond congressional intent.
Officials stated that this expanded interpretation turned routine activities into regulatory obstacles. It allegedly increased costs for individuals and businesses and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress had originally envisioned for the ESA.
The administration is drawing on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo. This ruling overturned “Chevron deference,” establishing that courts must independently interpret federal statutes instead of relying on an agency’s preferred reading of ambiguous laws.
The rule change is intended to align regulations with the “single best” meaning of a statute. This contrasts with allowing interpretations to be “contorted to fit a political agenda,” as stated by officials.
The dunes sagebrush lizard, listed as endangered by the Biden administration in 2024, was cited as an example of what officials consider speculative, habitat-based restrictions. These restrictions allegedly imposed unnecessary limitations on energy projects in Texas’s Permian Basin.
Under Section 9 of the ESA, it is illegal to “take” endangered wildlife. Congress defined “take” to include actions like harming, harassing, wounding, or killing protected species.
Federal documents linked the decline of certain species to surface-disturbing activities, such as energy development and sand mining. Officials and industry representatives argue these activities can lead to costly permitting and compliance burdens.
Another species mentioned is the lesser prairie-chicken, a grassland bird whose federal protections have faced opposition from farmers, ranchers, and energy developers in states like New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado.
The debate over habitat-based “harm” is not new. The listing of the northern spotted owl in 1990, for instance, sparked a prolonged conflict over timber harvesting in the Pacific Northwest and was linked to job losses.
A 2021 study published in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management estimated that the northern spotted owl’s ESA listing resulted in a reduction of approximately 16,000 to 32,000 timber jobs in the Pacific Northwest and northern California.
Timber companies and landowners challenged the federal definition of “harm.” They argued that “harm” should only apply to direct injury to wildlife, not to habitat modifications that indirectly affect a species.
In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, upholding a definition of “harm” that included significant habitat modification when it directly killed or injured protected wildlife.
Officials believe this regulatory adjustment is designed to narrow the scope of the rule, especially following the Loper Bright decision. The goal is to prevent agencies from using habitat-based theories to block lawful activities that extend beyond what Congress authorized.
The agencies contended that the previously expanded definition of “harm” constituted an unlawful infringement on private property rights.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick commented that fishermen, in particular, have been unduly burdened by this regulation for an extended period.
Lutnick stated that returning the ESA to its original purpose serves to protect both the environment and economic development.
“This administration is committed to protecting wildlife using Gold Standard Science, the law, and the tools Congress actually gave us,” added U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik. “We can protect species and respect communities at the same time.”
Administration officials emphasized that core ESA protections remain in effect. These include prohibitions against directly injuring or killing protected wildlife.
The administration asserts that this change is intended to decrease permitting and compliance costs. It also aims to provide greater legal certainty for landowners, energy producers, and developers, thereby advancing President Donald Trump’s objective of domestic energy dominance and a regulatory framework that supports, rather than hinders, the average American.
