The Trump administration is planning to remove habitat protections for endangered and threatened species, a move that environmentalists warn could result in the extinction of critically endangered species due to activities such as logging, mining, and development. The issue revolves around the definition of “harm” in the Endangered Species Act, which has traditionally encompassed altering or destroying the habitats of these species. Habitat destruction is identified as the primary cause of extinction, according to Noah Greenwald, the endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity.
In a proposed rule issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, it was stated that habitat modification should not be considered harm as long as it is not a deliberate targeting of a species, known as “take.” Environmentalists argue that the definition of “take” has always included actions that harm species, a stance supported by previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Greenwald expressed concerns that the proposed rule weakens the core of the Endangered Species Act, potentially leaving endangered species vulnerable.
For instance, spotted owls and Florida panthers are currently protected because the existing rule prohibits habitat destruction. Under the new rule, individuals engaging in activities like logging or development would be able to proceed without hindrance as long as they claim no intention to harm an endangered species. The proposed rule was set to be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, initiating a 30-day public comment period.
Environmental groups have vowed to challenge the rule in court if it is enacted, citing potential setbacks in the conservation and recovery efforts for endangered species like bald eagles, gray wolves, Florida manatees, and humpback whales. Drew Caputo, an attorney at Earthjustice, warned that the proposal could jeopardize decades of progress in safeguarding endangered species. The concern arises as the current rule recognizes that destroying habitats crucial for a species’ survival constitutes harm to that species.
The question arises as to whether the Trump administration has the authority to revoke a rule that was previously upheld by the Supreme Court and thereby established as precedent, according to Patrick Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School specializing in endangered species cases. He highlighted that the current definition of harm has led to the preservation of vast swaths of land to protect species.
The issue is particularly pressing in Hawaii, where the state hosts the highest number of endangered species in the country, accounting for 40% of federally listed threatened and endangered species despite comprising less than 1% of the land area. Maxx Philipps, the Hawaii and Pacific Islands director for the Center for Biological Diversity, warned that removing these protections would exacerbate Hawaii’s extinction crisis, jeopardizing both the biological and cultural legacy of the islands. She pointed out the plight of native bees that rely on coastal dune plants for foraging and pollination, highlighting the scarcity of undeveloped oceanfront property and the fragmented nature of the remaining habitats.
“If protections are removed, people could also face losing their homes. ‘Habitat is essential for life,’ she emphasized. ‘Without it, there can be no recovery, and without recovery, there is only extinction.'”___This report includes contributions from Audrey McAvoy, an Associated Press writer based in Hawaii.___Financial backing for The Associated Press’ climate and environmental reporting is provided by various private foundations. The AP is accountable for all content. For information on AP’s guidelines for engaging with philanthropic organizations, a list of supporters, and funded coverage areas, visit AP.org.
