Here’s what Trump did and Democrats are livid.
The Trump administration announced Friday that it is rolling back a controversial interpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), arguing the change will reduce government regulation, strengthen private property rights, and remove barriers to American energy production.
Officials with the Departments of the Interior and Commerce said the previous interpretation of the law allowed federal agencies to expand their authority far beyond what Congress originally intended. The administration says the revised policy will restore the law’s original purpose while making it easier for landowners, farmers, ranchers, developers, and energy producers to move projects forward.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the previous approach placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and everyday Americans.
“For years, federal agencies relied on the Endangered Species Act to restrict legitimate land use and place unnecessary burdens on families, businesses, and property owners,” Burgum said. “What should have been ordinary activities often became tangled in costly regulations, increasing expenses for Americans and extending federal power beyond the limits Congress originally established.”
What Is Changing?
The Endangered Species Act makes it illegal to “take” endangered wildlife, including actions such as killing, injuring, or harming protected species.
For decades, federal agencies interpreted the word “harm” broadly enough to include certain forms of habitat modification, even when no direct injury to an animal occurred. Administration officials argue that interpretation expanded the law well beyond its original intent and created costly permitting requirements for landowners and businesses.
The new rule eliminates that broader regulatory definition, with officials saying the law should focus on direct harm to protected wildlife rather than allowing agencies to impose restrictions based on potential impacts to habitat.
According to the administration, the change restores legal clarity while limiting what it views as years of federal overreach.
Supreme Court Decision Cleared The Way
Administration officials said the policy change was made possible in part by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo.
That ruling ended the long-standing legal doctrine known as Chevron deference, which often required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws.
Instead, courts must now independently determine the best reading of federal statutes.
Officials say the revised Endangered Species Act rule follows that decision by relying on the plain language of the law rather than broader regulatory interpretations adopted by previous administrations.
Energy Production And Property Rights
The administration pointed to several recent examples that officials say demonstrate why the rule needed to be changed.
One involves the dunes sagebrush lizard, which was listed as endangered in 2024. Officials argue the designation created significant restrictions on energy development throughout Texas’ Permian Basin, one of the nation’s largest oil-producing regions.
Federal regulators linked the species’ decline to activities such as oil and gas development and sand mining. Industry groups, however, argued the resulting permitting requirements increased costs, delayed projects, and created unnecessary uncertainty for businesses.
Officials also highlighted the lesser prairie-chicken, whose federal protections have generated opposition from farmers, ranchers, and energy producers across Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico.
According to the administration, the revised rule will help reduce regulatory burdens while still maintaining protections for endangered wildlife.
A Debate That Has Lasted Decades
Disagreements over how the Endangered Species Act should be enforced are nothing new.
One of the best-known examples involved the northern spotted owl, whose listing as a protected species in 1990 led to significant restrictions on timber harvesting throughout the Pacific Northwest.
A 2021 study published in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management estimated the owl’s federal protections contributed to the loss of approximately 16,000 to 32,000 timber-related jobs across the Pacific Northwest and northern California.
Landowners and industry groups have long argued that the federal government expanded the meaning of “harm” beyond what Congress intended by treating habitat modification as equivalent to directly injuring protected species.
Although the Supreme Court upheld that broader interpretation in a 1995 ruling, administration officials believe the more recent Loper Bright decision provides a legal foundation for narrowing the regulation.
Commerce Department Says Industries Have Paid The Price
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said industries across the country, including commercial fishing, have dealt with unnecessary regulatory burdens for years.
He said restoring the original interpretation of the Endangered Species Act will better balance environmental protection with economic growth, job creation, and responsible resource development.
“This administration is committed to protecting wildlife using Gold Standard Science, the law, and the tools Congress actually gave us,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik said. “We can protect species and respect communities at the same time.”
Core Wildlife Protections Remain
Administration officials emphasized that the rollback does not eliminate the Endangered Species Act or its primary protections.
Federal law will continue to prohibit the direct killing, injury, or illegal taking of endangered species.
Instead, officials say the revised rule is intended to provide greater legal certainty while reducing permitting delays, lowering compliance costs, strengthening private property rights, and encouraging domestic energy production.
The administration argues the policy supports President Donald Trump’s broader agenda of expanding American energy independence, reducing federal red tape, and ensuring government regulations protect both the environment and the economic interests of hardworking Americans.
Environmental organizations are expected to challenge the rule in court, meaning the latest chapter in the long-running debate over the Endangered Species Act is likely to continue.