The administration rescinds the longstanding definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act to prioritize direct animal impacts over habitat preservation.
The administration announced a major regulatory shift by rescinding the long-standing definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act. Under the previous rule, "harm" included the destruction of an animal's habitat, such as forests or wetlands, even if the impact was indirect. The new rule narrows this definition to include only actions that directly and intentionally injure or kill individual animals. The administration framed the move as a way to restore the "original intent" of the law and reduce burdensome regulations for landowners and businesses. By removing the requirement to protect habitat unless the species is currently present, the rule opens more land for logging, mining, and oil and gas drilling. While the administration noted that states can choose to protect habitats under their own laws, many experts argue that state agencies lack the resources and specific mandates to fill the void left by federal oversight. Environmental advocates and tribal nations have already filed lawsuits to challenge the rollback, which they argue could weaken the law's ability to prevent extinction.