Environmental groups sue government to stop a big change to the Endangered Species Act
The Trump administration has officially rescinded a decades-old definition of the word harm under the Endangered Species Act. For over 50 years, federal agencies interpreted this term to include significant habitat modification or destruction. This standard provided protection for critical areas where threatened species feed, reproduce, and seek shelter.
Government officials argue that the change restores the original intent of the law and reduces regulatory burdens for private landowners. They claim this adjustment creates clarity for developers and industry groups who have long sought to minimize federal oversight on private property. The new rule takes effect on September 14.
Environmental organizations and tribal communities are challenging the decision in federal court. Law firms like Earthjustice, alongside groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity, filed a lawsuit this week in Seattle. They argue that excluding habitat destruction from the legal definition of harm ignores the primary driver of extinction for most species. Attorneys represent that the change is an unreasoned departure from decades of established legal precedent.
Legal experts expect significant disruption as the courts address the conflict between the historical definition and the administration’s new interpretation. Projects involving land use now face potential delays as parties litigate the scope of the act. Indigenous groups, including the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community and the Squaxin Island Tribe, emphasize that the loss of habitat protection directly impacts local ecosystems, such as salmon stocks in the Puget Sound.
Industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute have expressed support for the shift. They view the rollback as a necessary correction that balances wildlife protection with economic development. As the September deadline approaches, the battle over this definition remains a central point of contention for federal environmental policy.