May 1, 2025
Proposed Bill Would Weaken the Act, Increasing Risk of Extinction
A new draft rule has been proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that would imperil protective standards for endangered species. The proposed changes would repeal the current definition of “harm” that is prohibited under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The Endangered Species Act protects endangered and threatened species and their ecosystems by prohibiting actions that harm or “take” them, regulating the import and export of listed species, requiring protection of critical habitats, and providing financial assistance and interagency cooperation for conservation efforts. The Act also mandates the development of recovery plans and monitors species populations to determine recovery.
Take and Harm
Currently, under the Endangered Species Act, agencies interpret harm to include damage to species’ habitat. Under the Endangered Species Act the term “take” is essentially, the harm or killing protected species. Take has been defined to include harm via “significant habitat modification or degradation,” and has been prohibited under the ESA to protect endangered species from indirect harm.
Directed by the Trump administration the two agencies responsible for enforcing the ESA is proposing to remove that part of the definition, increasing harm to the species. Habitat destruction such as wetland destruction, loss of nesting or nursery habitat, the loss of associated species important for the species survival, and pollution are among the biggest causes of extinction.
But the Trump administration is trying to change language in the rule to make it easier for developers and industry. It would loosen restrictions on industrial activities like coastal development and oil exploration that might damage an endangered animal’s habitat, even if the animal itself is not directly harmed.
The Endangered Species Act Works
A 2019 study published in the journal PeerJ concluded that the Endangered Species Act has saved roughly 99 percent of protected wildlife since its creation in 1973, demonstrating the law has been overwhelmingly successful. Of the more than 1,700 animals and plants protected under the Endangered Species Act, the authors found just four species that went extinct after receiving protection and another 22 that are possibly extinct.
Allowing take through habitat loss will have direct impact on endangered wildlife. Habitat is the place where animals live, including their prey species. In many cases, species like green sea turtles require specific beaches to nest. Great hammerhead sharks use specific estuaries and shallow bays to gestate and pup. Loss of that habitat means no baby turtles or baby sharks.
On top of other threats to the marine environment including opening commercial fishing in Marine protected areas, this proposal could reverse critical environmental safeguards and over 50 years of important species protection. Redefining harm to leave out habitat destruction could be the death knell for imperiled species across the United States and beyond, like great hammerhead sharks, green sea turtles and short tailed albatross.
Sample email or letter:
As your constituent, I know you share my concerns about the proposed changes to existing laws that currently protect human health, protecting the environment and wildlife. I am writing today to ask you to support important environmental protections passed by and upheld by the U.S. Congress for nearly 50 years to ensure the health, livelihood, and safety of our wildlife, ecosystems, air, and people.
I ask you to do this by:
- Blocking attempts to weaken the Endangered Species Act or make the law less reliant on science and less effective at protecting ecosystems and livable places, including changes in definitions of habitat or “harm” to include “significant habitat modification or degradation.”;
- Stopping any weakening or modification to National Marine Sanctuaries or the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
- Saying no to attempts to reinterpret or undermine the National Environmental Protection Act, which provides public participation in many federal decisions;
- Maintaining current no-fishing zones in the Pacific Islands Heritage National Marine Monument.
I would like to see a healthy environment securing the future health, prosperity and safety for all Americans. We expect our elected leaders to support the health of our environment and ocean, and not allow the administration to deregulate important protection preserving species and environmental protection. As your constituent, I respectfully request that you resist any reductions of existing environmental protection and provide strong legislation and oversight to maintain environmental protection laws secure so that they may serve the people.
Thank you for your consideration of this urgent request.
Sincerely,