Washington (AFP) – The Trump administration aims to remove degradation of habitat from its definition of “harm” to endangered species, proposing Wednesday a rule change that would open the door to human activity in ecologically sensitive environments.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the definition of “harm” in the Endangered Species Act should exclude “actions that impair the habitat of protected species.”
Environmental groups said the rule change would allow timber, oil and mining activity, as well as other activities by individuals and the government, to destroy the habitats of endangered animals.
“For 50 years, the ESA has saved numerous species – including iconic American species like bald eagles, gray wolves, Florida manatees, and humpback whales – from extinction,” environmental law organization Earthjustice said.
“One key to this success has been its definition of harm, which recognizes the common-sense concept that destroying a forest, beach, river, or wetland that a species relies on for survival constitutes harm to that species,” it said, adding that the group was prepared to challenge the proposal in court.
“There’s just no way to protect animals and plants from extinction without protecting the places they live, yet the Trump administration is opening the flood gates to immeasurable habitat destruction,” said Noah Greenwald, codirector of endangered species at the Center for Biological Diversity.
“Without a prohibition on habitat destruction, spotted owls, sea turtles, salmon and so many more imperiled animals won’t stand a chance,” said Greenwald. “Trump is trying to drive a knife through the heart of the Endangered Species Act.”
The proposal will now be open to public comment for 30 days.
Since its 1973 enactment, the Endangered Species Act has been credited with saving iconic species such as the gray wolf, bald eagle and grizzly bear from extinction.
President Donald Trump ran on a platform that promised to roll back environmental regulations that crimp economic development.
In February, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum issued a call for proposals to unleash US energy, potentially opening up fragile landscapes from the Arctic to the Grand Canyon and even national monuments for exploitation.
Days later, Trump said his administration aimed to cut about 65 percent of staff at the Environmental Protection Agency.
It’s like they’re actively trying to do as much damage as possible, to literally everything.
Turns out, they actually WANT the world to end so they can: 1. Go to heaven 2. Buy everything dirt cheap 3. Kill off those pesky non whites
When you think about it that way, I’m shocked there haven’t been nukes yet.
It’s almost if
Not “like”. That’s the goal.
How are they trying to harm the profits of the big US tech companies?
They’ve all lost billions since he took office.
Zoom out. They’re not loosing. They’re buying right now as the middle class sells. This is what a transfer of wealth looks like.
They’re increasing their wealth.
The long term impacts of Trump and the current Republicans is going to be larger than anyone is estimating. All those tech companies will be hurting in the long run.
He’s hurting us to benefit them.
There is no one in the US who will benefit from what Trump is doing (besides maybe Trump and some cronies). The only people who seem to be benefiting are Russia and maybe China.
Nah, this is a transfer of power between the big banking plutocrats who have ruled the US for a long time to the big tech bro plutocrats.
There are some people who are benefiting. See who sat in the front row of his inauguration.
Zoom out. Read Naomi Klein’s shock doctrine.
This is how they make a killing.
deleted by creator
I wonder if they would consider themselves harmed if their homes were bulldozed to make way for an oil derrick.
deleted by creator
“For 50 years, the ESA has saved numerous species – including iconic American species like bald eagles […] from extinction”
Self-proclaimed patriots driving their own national symbol to extinction, no satire in the world could’ve written it better.
Ok, it says that it should be officially published today.
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/17/2025 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2025-06746, and on https://govinfo.gov/
After that happens you have 30 days to leave a comment:
Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/. In the Search box, enter FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0034, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment.”
Also, if you have the chance, protest like we are about to fuck over all future generations.
Oh what bastards, they timed the publication so that people forget about it after a 4 day weekend.
Set yourself an alarm, and save this post.
Even from an economic perspective this proposed rule change is horrible. We learn an enormous amount from animals and that knowledge creates enormous economic value.
An example is the horseshoe crab
In 2023, the US Fish and Wildlife Service halted the harvesting of horseshoe crabs in the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge, South Carolina, from March 15 to July 15 to aid their reproduction.[87] This decision was influenced by the importance of horseshoe crab eggs as a food source for migratory birds, the ongoing use of horseshoe crabs for bait, and the use of their blood in medical products.[87] The ban supports the conservation goals of the refuge, spanning 66,000 acres (26,700 hectares) of marshes, beaches, and islands near Charleston.[87]
This estimates the value of horseshoe crabs to the medical research industry at $100M per year (they have special blue blood). And as our technology improves we are always learning more from animals, so we don’t know which animals will give us our next billion dollar industry. The cost of extinction to future generations is literally infinite.
I know, let’s try every bat shit idea the far right has ever come up with.
Nice to see that animals aren’t better off then Americans. At least there’s consistency.
Pretty sure millions being murdered every year (without the courts recognizing their death as murder) is not better
Yes because if someone demolishes your house or sets it on fire they cause no harm to you, right? I mean you don’t really need a place like to sleep and be safe right?
