Over 1,600 plant and animal species in the United States are listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Republican President Richard Nixon in 1973 signed the Endangered Species Act, aimed at protecting rare wildlife with the goal of preventing extinction.
The law is credited with saving upwards of 99% of endangered species from extinction. Interpretation of the ESA has been mostly the same between both Democratic and Republican presidents.
However, a rule change implemented by the Trump administration could cause more challenges for species already fighting for survival.
Species like the Northern Spotted Owl, found in Northern California through the Pacific Northwest, could be most at risk. The administration has a new interpretation of the definition of “harm” in the law. This interpretation allows for industries, such as logging, to encroach on the habitats of threatened wildlife. For an animal like the Northern Spotted Owl, which has seen its numbers decline due to habitat loss, the change could be devastating.
“What will happen now with the lack of protection of the habitat of these animals, the timber industry can just go in and clear cut,” says Kathy Hessler, the Assistant Dean of Animal Law at The George Washington University. “Without any concern of the Spotted Owls or their prey.”
Lawsuits have been filed in federal courts, including in Northern California. Organizations such as the Western Environmental Law Center are challenging the rule change, arguing the plain meaning in the definition of harm includes habitats.
The Department of the Interior released a statement supporting the change, saying: “The action returns the interpretation of the ESA back to its actual text and original intent, which will end years of federal overreach... This reform is based on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which requires agencies to follow the single best meaning of a statute rather than contorting laws to fit political agendas. Using the legally justifiable standard, the Services determined that the prior definition of ‘harm’ was an unlawful regulatory intrusion that interfered with private property rights.”
“Logging, water withdrawals, dam construction, those kinds of activities that modify or destroy habitat for listed species, have so profoundly impacted these species that they’re on the verge of extinction," Pete Frost with the Western Environmental Law Center said. “This is a sea change and will have a dramatic effect on all kinds of species across the country. It is a dramatically different interpretation of the law that is inconsistent with 50 years of bipartisan interpretation... It will for sure lead to the extinction of certain species.”
Spectrum News reached out to the Department of the Interior on the lawsuits. The department did not offer comment.