It would seem inconsistent to ban shooting a threatened woodpecker yet permit logging of its forest, or to forbid killing endangered salmon while allowing a dam to drain their waters. The Trump administration has achieved a similar outcome by altering the interpretation of one word in the Endangered Species Act: harm. For five decades the federal government viewed the law as shielding species from both direct killing and habitat loss. A July 2026 rule keeps the direct-killing protection but drops habitat safeguards. Habitat loss is the main reason most listed species are imperiled, as their living spaces have been developed, burned or altered. Ecologists and legal scholars who study species recovery warn that the change could allow widespread habitat destruction, undermining efforts to save endangered wildlife. The 1973 Endangered Species Act prohibits the take of listed species, including harm. Since 1975, regulations defined harm to cover habitat destruction that kills or injures animals. A 1995 Supreme Court case upheld that reading. The new rule narrows harm to exclude habitat modification, removing the law’s strongest protection. Studies show habitat loss and degradation drove 81 percent of listings from 1975 to 2017, compared with 17 percent from direct killing. More than 43 million hectares of critical habitat now exist nationwide. The revised definition conflicts with the statute’s stated goal of conserving ecosystems that endangered species depend on.
