“Harm” Redefined: A Step Backward for Endangered Species

The Trump administration has proposed a rule change that could gut a cornerstone of American wildlife protection: the Endangered Species Act. The proposed change would dramatically narrow the definition of the word “harm,” effectively stripping protections from the habitats that endangered animals rely on to survive.

Currently, “harm” under the Act includes not just killing or injuring animals, but also actions that damage critical habitat — like forests, wetlands, or breeding grounds — thereby impairing a species’ ability to feed, breed, or shelter. This broader interpretation has been essential in protecting over 1,700 species since the Act’s passage in 1973.

If finalized, the new rule would allow destructive industries to log, mine, or build on sensitive lands so long as no animals are physically harmed in the process. Conservationists are calling this proposal “callous and reckless”, warning that it will reverse decades of progress and drive vulnerable species closer to extinction.

The proposal leans on a narrow legal interpretation championed by the late Justice Antonin Scalia — one that was previously rejected by the Supreme Court in the 1990s. By prioritizing a technicality over ecological reality, this change ignores the fact that habitat loss is the leading cause of extinction.

At Save the Rookery, we know that protecting habitat is protecting species. Without safe places to live, endangered animals cannot survive — no matter how carefully we avoid harming them directly. We strongly oppose this dangerous rollback and urge all conservation-minded citizens to speak out during the 30-day public comment period. You can submit your comments here by May 19, 2025.

Nature has no voice in this debate — but we do. Let’s use it.