On April 16, the Trump administration proposed a new rule that would rescind definition of the word “harm” as it is applied by law in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA prohibits the “take” of an endangered species which includes actions “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Historically, the “harm” part of the mandate encompasses “any activity that can modify a species habitat.” This interpretation has been upheld in court for decades. The new proposal would strip the habitat protections away from the “harm” definition in the ESA.

In other words, there would no longer be any justification to protect a habitat even if that specific habitat is crucial for the survival of an endangered species. Forests could be destroyed even though an endangered species of bird nests in the trees (e.g.Northern Spotted Owl). Wetlands could be destroyed even though an endangered species of fish needs that wetland to lay eggs (e.g. Atlantic Sturgeon). It totally guts the ESA by saying it is OK to destroy entire ecosystems that endangered species depend upon for their livelihood.

The ESA has saved many species from the brink of extinction. The Bald Eagles we enjoy along the Illinois River wouldn’t be here if adequate nesting sites and healthy wetlands were not protected under the ESA. There is a
30-day public comment period that will run through May 19, 2025.

Go to regulations.gov to voice your opinion and submit a comment.