Trump administration alters definition under Endangered Species Act to aid businesses

The Trump administration finalized a rule July 10 that rescinds the federal ban on significantly modifying or degrading the habitat of animals protected by the Endangered Species Act.

The US Department of Interior and Department of Commerce said law relied on an outdated regulatory definition of "harm" that led to federal overreach.

The definition of "harm" is important for developers of energy projects because numerous federal agencies consider potential harm to habitat when conducting project reviews.

In a joint press release, Interior and Commerce said the law's core protections remain in place and that actions that kill or injure wildlife will continue to be prohibited.

The final rule "will reduce unnecessary permitting, cut compliance costs, and eliminate confusion for landowners, small businesses, energy producers, farmers, ranchers and local governments," the agencies said.

Numerous environmental groups, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, criticized the Trump administration action July 10. The the Center for Biological Diversity called it "a cynical attempt to open species' habitats to logging, mining, oil and gas drilling and other destruction."

Interior and Commerce said the new rule is based on a 2024 US Supreme Court ruling (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 22-451) that overturned the 40-year-old Chevron legal doctrine, which gave regulatory agencies discretion over rulemakings. Interior and Commerce said that using the updated legal standard, they "determined that the prior definition of 'harm' was an unlawful regulatory intrusion that interfered with private property rights."

When a proposed rule was issued in the first half of 2025, agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the US Fish and Wildlife Service said they would narrow the definition of the type of harm inflicted on a protected species. The agencies often require companies to conduct mitigation activities to reduce the risk of harm to species listed under the ESA.

The proposed rule said the definition of harm was too broad under current regulations and must be changed to reflect the true intent of the law.

Existing federal permits and incidental take statements for projects that passed reviews under the ESA will remain valid and unchanged, the agencies said.