The Trump administration announced earlier this week its proposal to make changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), limiting protections given to plants and animals and boosting the influence of economic factors in decision-making.<\/p>\n
This isn\u2019t the first time alterations have been made to the ESA; the previous Trump administration made changes to the act back in 2019 and 2020, and the recently proposed rules essentially seek to restore those changes, after they were reinstated during the Biden administration.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis administration is restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent, protecting species through clear, consistent and lawful standards that also respect the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources,\u201d said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum in a statement announcing the proposals.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese revisions end years of legal confusion and regulatory overreach, delivering certainty to states, tribes, landowners and businesses while ensuring conservation efforts remain grounded in sound science and common sense.\u201d<\/p>\n
This latest move wasn\u2019t unexpected; the administration had already proposed changing the definition of \u201charm\u201d under the act earlier this year, while plans to \u201cdrill baby, drill\u201d in wildlife refuges and mine deep-sea ecosystems sparked concerns that further changes to the ESA were also on the agenda.<\/p>\n
Signed into law by Republican President Richard Nixon, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is widely regarded as one of the world\u2019s most important conservation laws, providing \u201ca framework to conserve and protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats both domestically and abroad\u201d, reads the NOAA Fisheries website, one of the two agencies that leads the implementation of the ESA, the other being the US Fish and Wildlife Service.<\/p>\n
Under the law, any attempted or successful \u201ctake\u201d \u2013 meaning harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting \u2013 of endangered species is prohibited (with some exceptions). The import and export of listed species is also generally illegal.<\/p>\n
One study estimates that the act has prevented the extinction of nearly 300 species since it came into law, saving more than 99 percent of the species under its protection.<\/p>\n
In total, there are four proposed rules that cover how decisions are made about listing and delisting species, how listed species\u2019 critical habitat is determined, how they are protected, and how agencies work together to ensure they don\u2019t jeopardize listed species or their critical habitat.<\/p>\n
One of the most significant proposals is the suggested removal of the \u201cblanket rule\u201d, which automatically gives newly listed threatened species the same protections as those listed as endangered.<\/p>\n
Instead, new members of the list would have to wait for species-specific protections. However, threatened species that are already listed and receiving protections under the blanket rule would continue to receive them until their species-specific protections had been determined.<\/p>\n
Another critical change is how much economic and national security factors are taken into account when making decisions about how species should or shouldn\u2019t be listed and their critical habitat. Essentially, it\u2019s planned for them to have more influence.<\/p>\n
The consequences of that could be the removal of critical habitat, as the proposal would authorize \u201cthe exclusion of areas from critical habitat if the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of designating it as critical habitat.\u201d For example, if the land has a higher value as a financial asset, that could take precedence.<\/p>\n
The proposals also include changing the act\u2019s definition of \u201cforeseeable future\u201d, which is used when considering potential future threats to a species and how the species may react to them, for example, threats brought on by climate change. The new definition effectively removes safeguards for those future threats.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s safe to say that the announcement has attracted mixed opinions. Unsurprisingly, given the potential benefits to it, the proposals have seen support from the energy industry, which has long lobbied for a loosening of the ESA.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Trump administration is rightfully redressing problems with E.S.A. and reducing overreaching regulatory burdens,\u201d Melissa Simpson, president of Western Energy Alliance, a trade association, said in a statement seen by The New York Times. \u201cWe\u2019ve been pushing for changes like these and believe today\u2019s announcement will continue to protect listed species.\u201d<\/p>\n
The reaction from conservation organizations, however, is less positive.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf these Trump proposals had been in place in the 1970s, the only place you\u2019d find a bald eagle today is on the back of a dollar bill,\u201d said Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement.. \u201cThis plan hacks apart the Endangered Species Act and creates a blueprint for the extinction of some of America\u2019s most beloved wildlife.\u201d<\/p>\n
We assumed Trump would attack wildlife again but this dumpster fire of a plan is beyond cruel. Americans overwhelmingly support the Endangered Species Act and want it strengthened, not sledgehammered. We\u2019ve fought this before and we\u2019ll fight it again,\u201d Kurose added.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s important to note that the changes aren\u2019t likely to come into action soon. Beginning November 19, the proposed rules are open for public comment, and after that, it typically takes two to three years to actually become enacted.<\/p>\n