US Trump Administration Weakens Endangered Species Act in Major Policy Shift

The United States government is implementing a major reinterpretation of the landmark 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) by narrowing how federal agencies define the illegal "take" of protected wildlife. According to a policy memo signed by Brian Nesvik, director of the Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife Service, the federal government will no longer consider the unintentional killing of protected animals as unlawful under the statute.

The policy shift redefines the term "take"—which historically covered pursuing, killing, or capturing a species—to mean strictly "affirmative conduct intentionally directed against a particular animal or animals." Consequently, wildlife deaths resulting from foreseeable risks tied to commercial activities such as logging and commercial fishing will be exempt from penalties under the 1973 law. The Interior Department confirmed the authenticity of the memo to AFP, stating that it accurately reflects the service's guidance following a final rule that rescinded the regulatory definition of "harm."

Historically, the Fish and Wildlife Service held individuals and corporations legally liable for accidentally harming protected species, including manatees, grizzly bears, and spotted owls. Critics and former federal officials have strongly condemned the policy change. Dan Ashe, who led the agency under former President Barack Obama, told the Associated Press that the shift cuts against the entire history of the statute. Ashe argued that the reinterpretation creates a massive loophole, entirely relieving people of responsibility for predictable consequences arising from their actions.

The latest memo builds upon a broader overhaul of the Endangered Species Act by the Trump administration. Last year, the administration announced it would factor economic considerations into decisions regarding whether to protect species at risk of extinction. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has defended these changes, asserting that the ESA has been weaponized to halt economic projects, weaken national competitiveness, undermine national security, and adversely affect Americans.

Additional adjustments to the implementation of the ESA include a redefinition of "harm" that allows oil drilling, mining, and other commercial activities in endangered habitats, provided those operations do not directly kill or injure the animals. The administration also halted the automatic application of endangered species protections to species categorized as "threatened" and moved to shrink two vast protected land areas in Utah by more than 90% to open millions of acres for fossil fuel extraction and mining.

The sweeping regulatory changes have already triggered significant legal pushback. Last week, the attorneys general of 20 Democratic-led states, alongside Washington, DC, filed lawsuits against the administration over the ESA overhaul. One lawsuit contests the redefinition of "harm," while a second challenges the removal of automatic protections for newly threatened species and the inclusion of business-related criteria when designating critical habitats.

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown criticized the federal approach during the legal challenge, stating that the administration is undermining the law, congressional intent, and public support for wildlife preservation. Brown characterized the administration's approach to natural resources as one of exploitation rather than stewardship. The ongoing litigation sets up a major legal battle over five decades of precedent in how federal environmental protections are interpreted and enforced across the United States.