The Trump administration announced a rule change on July 10, 2026, removing habitat destruction from the definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). While the interpretation of the ESA has been a subject of decades-long legal and political debate, the federal regulatory definition of "harm"—which includes habitat destruction—was established by long-standing agency policy and Supreme Court precedent.
The Legal Definition of "Harm" and Habitat Protection
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 prohibits the "take" of any endangered species, which includes harming protected species. Since 1975, regulations have defined "harm" to include habitat destruction that kills or injures wildlife.
This regulatory definition faced a major legal challenge in the 1995 Supreme Court case Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon. The Court ruled that the definition was reasonable and allowed federal agencies to continue using it.
Habitat Loss as a Primary Driver of Extinction
Scientific research identifies habitat protection as the single most important factor in the recovery of endangered species in the United States. According to the U.S.
A 2019 study analyzed the primary causes of endangerment for species listed under the ESA between 1975 and 2017. The researchers found that 81% were listed because of habitat loss and degradation, while only 17% were primarily threatened by direct killing, such as hunting or poaching. As natural landscapes are fragmented by urban development, agriculture, and resource extraction, the remaining "critical habitat" becomes the primary safeguard for species recovery.
Ongoing Debates Over ESA Implementation
The application of the ESA frequently triggers tension between conservation efforts and industrial interests. Developers, agricultural groups, and oil and gas companies have called for changes to the rules for years, arguing it has been weaponized to stop development.
Conversely, environmental organizations maintain that the strength of the ESA lies in its ability to protect the ecosystems upon which species depend. The Center for Biological Diversity estimates that the ESA has saved 99% of protected species from extinction since it was created.
Status of Regulatory Protections
The Trump administration has changed the definition of "harm" in a way that leaves out habitat modification. The administration did not conduct the usual analysis of the environmental impact that changing the definition could have. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum has argued that the recent "de-extinction" of dire wolves by changing 14 genes in the gray wolf genome means that America need not worry about species protection because technology "can help forge a future where populations are never at risk."
Related reading