Trump Administration Rescinds 1975 ESA 'Harm' Rule, Triggering Suits Before Sept. 14 Start
Updated
Updated · abcnews.com · Jul 14
Trump Administration Rescinds 1975 ESA 'Harm' Rule, Triggering Suits Before Sept. 14 Start
3 articles · Updated · abcnews.com · Jul 14
Summary
A final rule uploaded Tuesday strips the Endangered Species Act of a 1975 definition of “harm” that had treated significant habitat destruction as illegal when it kills or injures protected wildlife.
The administration said the change will take effect Sept. 14 and argued it restores the statute’s original meaning, reduces permitting and compliance costs, and follows the Supreme Court’s rollback of Chevron deference.
Environmental groups including the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club and Conservation Law Foundation have already sued, while Defenders of Wildlife sent notice of its intent to sue.
A 1995 Supreme Court ruling upheld the broader definition, and critics say removing habitat destruction from “harm” weakens a law they credit with preventing the extinction of 99% of listed species.
The Supreme Court once said habitat loss is 'harm.' With that now erased, what legal ground do endangered species have left?
This rule promises economic growth, but what is the overlooked price of letting critical wildlife habitats for species like grizzlies disappear?
Redefining "Harm": The Trump Administration’s 2026 Rollback of Endangered Species Act Protections and Its Far-Reaching Impacts
Overview
On July 15, 2026, the Trump administration rescinded the broader 'harm' rule under the Endangered Species Act, ending over five decades of federal protection that included habitat modification or degradation as 'harm' to endangered animals. This new, narrower definition removes habitat damage from legal protection, allowing increased mining, ranching, and development in areas once safeguarded for wildlife. The change reverses a long-standing interpretation affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1995 and has sparked immediate legal challenges from environmental and tribal groups, who argue it undermines the core purpose of the ESA and threatens vulnerable species.