Trump Administration Narrows Endangered Species Act 'Harm' Definition, Eliminating Habitat Protections

On July 10, 2026, the Trump administration finalized a rule rescinding the regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act, eliminating protections against habitat destruction. Supported by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the administration relies on the Supreme Court's Loper Bright precedent to argue the old rule was an unlawful intrusion on private property. While industries welcome the reduction in permitting costs, environmental groups like Earthjustice plan to challenge the rollback in court.

ESA harm definition rescission

• ▪The rescinded definition of "harm," established in 1981, included significant habitat modification or degradation that kills or injures wildlife by impairing essential behavioral patterns
• ▪The Trump administration finalized a rule on July 10, 2026, that rescinds the regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act

Loper Bright legal basis

• ▪The administration argued that the Loper Bright ruling requires federal agencies to align regulations with the single best meaning of a statute rather than deferring to agency preferences
• ▪The Trump administration relies in part on the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overturned Chevron deference, to justify narrowing the Endangered Species Act's interpretation

Species-specific regulatory impacts

• ▪Administration officials cited the dunes sagebrush lizard and the lesser prairie-chicken as examples of species whose habitat-based protections triggered burdensome restrictions on energy and agricultural projects
• ▪The deletion of the harm definition allows loggers to cut trees containing the nests of endangered or threatened birds, such as the northern spotted owl, unless the birds are physically present

Private property rights concerns

• ▪The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that the previous definition of "harm" was an unlawful regulatory intrusion that interfered with private property rights
• ▪Interior Secretary Doug Burgum stated that federal agencies had abused the Endangered Species Act to obstruct lawful land use and turn routine activity into regulatory traps

Economic development priorities

• ▪Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated that the rule change protects both the environment and economic development, relieving long-standing regulatory burdens on fishermen
• ▪The repeal of the harm definition is intended to reduce permitting and compliance costs for businesses, land developers, fossil fuel companies, and agricultural interests

Core ESA protections maintained

• ▪The Endangered Species Act continues to regulate direct physical harm to protected plants and animals under Section 9, which prohibits the direct taking of endangered wildlife
• ▪Administration officials stressed that core Endangered Species Act protections remain in place, including prohibitions on directly injuring or killing protected wildlife