Habitat Preservation Prevents Species Devastation
By: Saoirse O’Lionain
If it were up to Trump, we’d all be endangered! The Endangered Species Act refers to a law passed in 1973 to protect vulnerable species and their habitats. It had near unanimous bipartisan support when enacted, and is recognized as having saved 99% of listed species from extinction, including the Bald Eagle, our country’s national bird¹. The ESA works with state and and Tribal governments, as well as private citizens, to support endangered species, fight climate change, and protect landscapes and the natural resources they provide, like clean water². Although the ESA has been modified before, no administration in recent years has pursued changes as far-reaching or publicly prominent as those initiated under President Trump. Recent proposals by the Trump administration have sought to cut back protections guaranteed by the ESA through modifying the regulatory definition of ‘harm’ to species and habitats³. The administration's new definition of harm would only limit behaviors that directly hurt or kill animals, removing protections against habitat destruction and environmental threats⁴. Despite the Trump administration’s efforts, the long-standing definition of harm under the Endangered Species Act must remain unchanged: habitat loss is the leading driver of species decline, and altering the definition would set a dangerous precedent for rolling back other protections guaranteed by the Act.
Habitat loss has been proven to be the main threat posed to 85% of all species. Around half of the world’s original forests have disappeared, and coastal degradation is at an all time high⁵. For this reason, a lot of the recent work achieved under the ESA, which has the ultimate goal of preventing extinction in plants and animals, has revolved around habitat preservation and environmental protections— this is extremely telling, given that, hunting, over-fishing, and abuse/exploitation continue to dwindle wild-life populations across the globe⁶. In this sense, modifying the ESA’s definition of harm to only include physical violence would undo years of efforts to save lives through prohibiting habitat modification and creating enforceable protections. What’s more, species recovery under the ESA is dependent on the definition of harm to include habitat loss, for recovery plans nearly always identify habitat preservation as the first and most essential action for preventing extinction. For example, the gray wolf, different species of birds, and even certain sea turtles have slowly become less at risk for extinction through protectionary habitat interventions under the ESA⁷. This shows that habitat preservation works in preventing extinction amongst endangered species, which is the primary purpose of the Act. Therefore, if the Trump administration were to rescind the ESA’s current definition of harm, it would directly undermine the law’s purpose and enable habitat destruction, the #1 killer of endangered species, to prevail.
Rescinding the current definition of harm in the ESA would inevitably dismantle other important aspects of the Act. According to Van Ness Feldman LLP, the proposal to modify the meaning of harm is not just a semantic change, but part of a “significant reset” of the ESA’s regulatory framework⁸. Removing habitat loss from the definition of harm represents a structural change that could weaken Section 7 consultations, HCPs, and critical habitat protections. Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to consult with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) or NOAA Fisheries before approving any action that might put a species at risk or modify a critical habitat⁹. However, if the Trump Administration is able to successfully change the definition of harm, many actions that currently require consultation would no longer trigger review, and developers would have more opportunity to argue that their actions don’t directly hurt animals. Therefore, the changes to the ESA proposed by the Trump Administration will have implications for the entire Act, not just the sections they wish to review. Similarly, Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA requires non-federal third parties to develop Habitat Conservation Plans, or HCPs, when engaging in any activity that may affect an endangered species. This process allows for development to move forward while still ensuring that endangered species are getting protected. However, if the definition of harm no longer includes habitat modification, fewer HCPs would be needed in the first place, meaning developers could clear habitat without needing a plan to offset impacts. Overall, by indirectly weakening other protections guaranteed by the law, rescinding the regulatory definition of harm will significantly limit the ESA’s ability to prevent species extinction.
One reason that some people support modifying the ESA’s definition of harm is because they believe the current definition is too broad, creating regulatory uncertainty. Given that the current definition of harm includes “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife”¹⁰, land-owners or developers who aren’t aware that their actions are causing habitat destruction may unknowingly break the law. Though this concern is understandable, restricting the ESA’s ability to defend vulnerable species is not the answer. Instead, law-makers should work towards establishing more specificity within the law while still maintaining an expansive definition of harm that includes habitat destruction, for habitat loss puts all species in grave danger.
The Trump Administration’s efforts to change the ESA’s regulatory definition of harm to only include behaviors that directly hurt or kill animals would prevent the ESA from carrying out its job. Excluding habitat loss, the number one threat posed to all species, from the ESA’s definition of harm would significantly reduce the number of species the country is able to save. The data shows that habitat preservation is rapidly minimizing extinctions, and undoing these efforts will only take us backwards. Moreover, changing the definition of harm will have broader impacts on the Act, requiring less consultations and conservation efforts on behalf of land developers; this puts endangered species in direct danger. Regardless of the ambiguity in the ESA’s definition of harm, we cannot afford to lose any more species. So, despite what the President may tell you, it is not possible to care about animal safety while supporting the initiative to rescind the ESA’s regulatory definition of harm.
References
¹ “The Endangered Species Act of 1973 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives,” history.house.gov, n.d.,
² US EPA, “Summary of the Endangered Species Act | US EPA,” US EPA, July 31, 2024, ³ “Endangered Species Act Regulations – Environmental and Energy Law Program,” Harvard.edu, 2025
⁴ Jonathan Lambert, “Destroying Endangered Species’ Habitat Wouldn’t Count as ‘Harm’ under Proposed Trump Rule,” NPR, April 17, 2025
⁵ WWF, “Impact of Habitat Loss on Species,” WWF, 2020
⁶ “The Places Endangered Species Call Home Could Lose Vital Protections,” Environment America, June 18, 2025
⁷ '‘Success of the ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT”
⁸ “Administration Proposes Rescinding the Endangered Species Act Regulatory Definition of ‘Harm,’” Vnf.com, 2025
⁹ “ESA Section 7 Consultation | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,” FWS.gov, n.d.
¹⁰ “Section 7 Consultation Technical Assistance Glossary of Terms,” FWS.gov, 2025
