The administration rescinds the "harm rule" under the Endangered Species Act, sparking a legal debate over habitat protection.
The administration announced the formal rescinding of the "harm rule" under the Endangered Species Act, a move that alters how the federal government defines what constitutes an injury to protected wildlife. For over 50 years, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service defined "harm" to include significant habitat modification or degradation. By removing this definition, the administration aims to reduce regulatory burdens and provide more certainty for private landowners. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum stated that the change restores common sense and follows the original intent of the statute. However, the move faces immediate legal challenges from environmental groups and tribes. Critics argue that because habitat loss is the primary driver of extinction, failing to count habitat degradation as "harm" is biologically illogical. While the administration relies on a previous dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia to justify the change, opponents argue that the 1995 Supreme Court ruling upholding habitat protection remains the best legal precedent. The new rule officially takes effect on September 14.