Endangered Species Lose Protections in Latest Trump Rollback

The Trump administration has launched another assault on environmental regulations, this time targeting the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A September 14 memo from Fish and Wildlife Service director Brian Nesvik redefines “take” under the ESA, exempting economic activities like logging, mining, and industrial development from prohibitions on harming or killing endangered animals.

The reinterpretation hinges on a distinction between intentional harm and incidental damage. According to the memo, an action is only considered a “take” if it was specifically intended to cause harm or death. However, this raises questions about what constitutes intent: the intention behind the action or the foreseeable consequences of that action? The answer seems deliberately vague.

Environmental advocacy groups have swiftly condemned the reinterpretation, citing the Supreme Court’s 1995 decision in Babbitt v Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon. In that ruling, the majority rejected the argument that “take” is limited to actions deliberately directed against endangered species. By attempting to rewrite the ESA through unilateral fiat, the Trump administration disregards established precedent.

This reinterpretation follows a series of environmental rollbacks by the Trump administration. Since returning to office in January, the president has weakened federal protections for old-growth forests, potentially jeopardizing habitat for 400 endangered species across the US; scrapped drilling restrictions near a world heritage site in New Mexico; and directed his administration to consider delisting gray wolves from the ESA.

These actions are part of a broader pattern of environmental deregulation that threatens conservation efforts. The Trump administration’s attempt to redefine “take” is not just a technical exercise, but a brazen effort to rewrite the law in favor of corporate interests at the expense of imperiled species. Earthjustice has described this reinterpretation as a “prescription for extinction,” and it’s hard to disagree.

The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed the importance of strict protections under the ESA. The Trump administration’s actions disregard established precedent and disserve the public trust. As we move forward, it will be essential to hold the administration accountable for its attempts to undermine environmental regulations and fight for the preservation of our natural heritage.

Twenty states and Washington DC have already sued the Trump administration over its decision to redefine “harm.” This lawsuit is just one example of the growing resistance against the administration’s environmental rollbacks. As we witness the erosion of protections for endangered species, it’s essential that we remember the gravity of this moment and stand united in defense of our natural world.

The future of conservation hangs in the balance, and it’s up to us to ensure that the ESA remains a powerful tool for protecting imperiled species. The Trump administration’s reinterpretation of “take” is a clear warning sign that our commitment to environmental protection is waning. It’s time to take action, speak out against this latest assault on conservation efforts, and demand a return to the principles that have guided us thus far.

As we face the prospect of extinction for countless species, one thing becomes clear: the Trump administration’s priorities are not aligned with the public interest. We must continue to fight for stronger protections under the ESA and hold accountable those who seek to undermine our natural heritage. The fate of endangered species is a matter that transcends partisan politics; it’s a reminder that our actions have consequences, and we must work together to preserve the beauty and diversity of life on Earth.