The Endangered Species Act has long been a cornerstone of wildlife conservation in the United States. However, a recent rule change announced on July 10, 2026, has sparked concern among ecologists and conservationists. This revision redefines the term harm excluding habitat destruction from its scope. This shift could have profound implications for the survival of endangered species, as habitat protection is crucial for their recovery.
For decades, the U.S. government has interpreted the Endangered Species Act to protect threatened and endangered species from actions that directly kill them or eliminate their habitat. The new rule maintains protection against direct killing but removes safeguards against habitat destruction. This change is particularly alarming given that most species on the brink of extinction are listed due to habitat loss.
The Legal Background of the Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act, enacted in 1973, prohibits the take of any endangered species of fish or wildlife which includes harming protected species. Since 1975, regulations have defined harm to include habitat destruction that kills or injures wildlife. This definition was upheld in a 1995 Supreme Court case, Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon.
The Trump administration‘s recent change narrows the definition of harm excluding habitat modification. This revision undermines the most significant protections granted by the Endangered Species Act, potentially accelerating development in endangered species’ habitats.
The Importance of Habitat Protection
Habitat protection is the single most important factor in the recovery of endangered species in the United States. A 2019 study found that only 17% of species listed as endangered between 1975 and 2017 were primarily threatened by direct killing. In contrast, 81% were listed due to habitat loss and degradation. Globally, a 2026 study found that habitat loss threatens more species than all other causes combined.
As natural landscapes are converted to agriculture, urban sprawl, logging operations, and oil and gas exploration, ecosystems become fragmented. This loss of habitat reduces the space that species need to survive and reproduce. Currently, more than 107 million acres of land in the U.S. are designated as critical habitat for Endangered Species Act-listed species.
Examples of Species Affected by Habitat Loss
Numerous species have been impacted by habitat loss, including the Chinook salmon, island fox, southwestern willow flycatcher, and desert tortoise. The golden-cheeked warbler, which breeds primarily in Texas Hill Country, has been losing habitat as development expands in the region. The Catalina Island fox, endemic to Catalina Island, has also faced population declines due to habitat loss, diseases introduced by domestic dogs, and predators.
The Implications of the Rule Change
The recent revision to the Endangered Species Act is a quiet way to gut the law’s habitat protections. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum has argued that technological advancements, such as the de-extinction of dire wolves by altering 14 genes in the gray wolf genome, mean that species protection is less critical. However, altering an existing species to resemble an extinct one is both expensive and insufficient for protecting existing species.
The administration did not conduct the usual analysis of the environmental impact that changing the definition could have. This lack of transparency means the American people won’t know the significance of this change until it’s too late. Wildlife groups are already planning to sue over the change, highlighting the controversy surrounding the revision.
The Endangered Species Act has saved 99% of protected species from extinction since its creation. This regulatory rollback seeks to undermine the law’s greatest strength: protecting the habitats species need to survive. Congress recognized the importance of habitat when it passed the law, and the current revision contradicts the act’s purpose and Supreme Court precedent.
