US Government Redefines ‘Harm’ Under Endangered Species Act
On July 14, 2026, the U.S. government under President Donald Trump’s administration finalized a rule that narrows what qualifies as “harm” under the Endangered Species Act. Under the new definition, only actions that directly harm or kill endangered species will be prohibited. Until recently, the definition of harm also included damaging the habitat that endangered wildlife depend on for food and shelter.
“This rule change is ludicrous. A kindergartener could explain that destroying an animal’s home will harm the animal,” Tierra Curry, endangered species co-director with the U.S.-based nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, told Mongabay in an email.
Changes to the Definition of ‘Harm’
Historical Context
The Endangered Species Act, a bedrock U.S. environmental law established more than 50 years ago, prohibits any person to “take” endangered species. The term “take” had been widely interpreted to prohibit both directly killing or harming endangered species and damaging the habitat essential for their survival. That interpretation was upheld by a case involving spotted owls, which ruled that harm also includes “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife.”
The New Rule
The new rule abandons that longstanding interpretation. “Actions that directly injure or kill listed wildlife will continue to be prohibited,” the U.S. Department of Interior and the Department of Commerce said in a joint statement. However, “[t]he final rule will reduce unnecessary permitting, cut compliance costs, and eliminate confusion for landowners, small businesses, energy producers, farmers, ranchers and local governments,” it stated.
Reactions and Legal Challenges
Support from Industry
Tawny Bridgeford, the general counsel and senior vice president of the National Mining Association, an industry trade group, welcomed the narrow interpretation. “[T]he definition of ‘harm’ has long been abused to serve as a punitive obstacle impeding critical projects,” Bridgeford told the press.
Opposition from Environmental Groups
Environmental advocates argue that the new definition of harm paves the way for land development including agriculture, logging, mining and oil and gas projects in habitats where endangered species live. The National Marine Fisheries Service, a federal scientific agency, acknowledges that “[h]abitat loss is the primary cause of higher extinction rates.” Without safe habitat, many endangered species could be pushed closer to extinction, just as scientists warn of a sixth mass extinction.
“This absurd slashing of protection means that the rivers where candy darters swim could be choked with coal mining waste, forests Pacific martens need could be clearcut, burrows of desert tortoises could be bulldozed for development, and oil drilling could ravage the habitat of polar bears,” Curry said.
The environmental law non-profit Earthjustice has said it plans to sue the administration. “This senseless rule has no scientific or legal basis,” Earthjustice said in a statement. “We will see the administration in court.” Curry said the Center for Biological Diversity also plans to “take urgent legal action to prevent harm to species from this political nonsense.”
Banner image: Pacific Martens (Martes caurina) are an endangered species in western North America. Image by Carita Berbman, via Mongabay.