Trump administration plans to overhaul Endangered Species Act to spur economic growth

• The Trump administration proposes to narrow the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA) definition of “harm” to endangered species, limiting it to actions that directly injure or kill the animals rather than including habitat destruction. This change aims to reduce regulatory burdens on industries like logging, mining and real estate development.
• The proposed revisions could significantly boost economic activities by allowing more development and resource extraction that would have previously been restricted due to potential harm to habitats. This aligns with the administration’s goal of fostering economic growth through deregulation.
• Environmentalists warn that the new interpretation could lead to increased habitat loss, which is a primary threat to endangered species. They argue that even indirect harm to habitats can have long-term detrimental effects on species survival.
• The proposal is subject to the federal rule-making process and is likely to face legal challenges. The involvement of a conservative Supreme Court could play a critical role in the outcome of these challenges.
• This move is part of a larger effort to reduce environmental regulations, following the administration’s previous actions to rescind climate-related orders. While supporters argue the ESA has been misused to stifle economic growth, environmental groups are preparing to oppose the changes, describing them as an assault on conservation efforts.

The Trump administration has unveiled plans to overhaul the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by redefining what it means to harm an endangered or threatened species, as part of its broader campaign to spur economic growth through deregulation, according to a report from RealClearPolitics.

This move, which has long been a priority for the president, could have a seismic impact on the ability to build and develop in the United States. The ESA, enacted in 1973, is a cornerstone of environmental law designed to protect and recover threatened and endangered species and their habitats.

Since its inception, it has been credited with saving 99 percent of listed species from extinction – including iconic animals like the bald eagle and the American alligator. However, the Trump administration and many conservatives view the act as a significant barrier to economic development and job creation. (Related: EPA report says glyphosate may harm – even kill – over 90% of endangered species.)

Trump has long been vocal about his disdain for what he calls “red tape of the green variety.” In an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan last October, he described environmental regulations as “the biggest tool for stopping growth” and harkened back to his days as a real estate developer in New York, where rare flora and fauna could quickly bring large construction projects to a halt. As a candidate, he often referred to environmental regulations as “a weapon” against economic progress.

Currently, the act makes it illegal to “take” protected animals, which includes any actions that “harass, kill, or harm” them. Historically, this has been interpreted broadly to include habitat destruction, which can indirectly harm species by altering their living conditions. The proposed revision would narrow this definition, limiting it to actions that directly injure or kill protected animals.

Trump’s ESA reforms: Economic boom or environmental doom?

For industries such as logging, mining and real estate development, this change could be a game-changer. Activities that would have previously been prohibited due to potential harm to habitats, such as building homes or logging timber, may now be permissible. According to one White House official, overhauling the ESA “will have a seismic, real-world effect on the ability to build,” reflecting the administration’s commitment to reducing regulatory burdens.

Environmentalists and conservation experts are deeply concerned about the potential consequences of this change. Organizations like the Center for Biological Diversity warn that the new interpretation could lead to increased habitat loss, which is often the primary threat to endangered species. They argue that habitat destruction, even if it doesn’t directly harm individual animals, can still have devastating long-term effects on species survival.

While the administration can make regulatory changes, any significant overhaul of the ESA would still need to navigate the federal rule-making process. Legal challenges are almost certain to follow, and a conservative Supreme Court may play a crucial role in determining the fate of these reforms. The proposal is currently open for public comment, with a deadline of May 19.

This latest move is part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to reduce environmental regulations. On his first day in office, President Trump rescinded nearly 80 climate-related orders issued by the previous administration. The proposed ESA revision is expected to be one of the most significant changes yet, potentially reshaping the regulatory and natural landscape for decades to come.

Supporters of the proposed changes, including Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR), argue that the ESA has failed to achieve its intended goals and has been warped by decades of litigation into a weapon against economic growth. Westerman has proposed the Endangered Species Amendment Act of 2025, which aligns with many of the administration’s goals.

On the other hand, environmental groups are preparing to fight the changes. Andrew Wetzler, senior vice president of nature at the Natural Resources Defense Council, described the proposal as a “full-out assault on America’s heritage.” He warned that if successful, the changes would turn the ESA into “a shell of itself” and leave many species vulnerable to extinction.

Trump.news has more stories like this.

Watch this discussion about assisted migration as a way of protecting endangered species from extinction.

This video is from the What is Happening channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

INSANITY: Phoenix Zoo vaccinates 75 ANIMALS for COVID-19 – all of them endangered species.

Endangered reptile species being sold as pets could be in danger of extinction, warn scientists.

EPA, Monsanto face lawsuit over pesticide drift that damaged millions of acres and threatened endangered species.

Sources include: 

ClimateDepot.com

SAN.com

CBSNews.com

Brighteon.com