Defenders Strongly Opposes Proposed Rescission of ESA “Harm” Definition

Defenders of Wildlife today submitted formal comments opposing the Trump administration’s proposed rule to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act. As part of its proposal, the Trump administration has signaled its intent to eliminate protections for the habitats of imperiled species. This move flies in the face of significant scientific evidence linking habitat loss to extinction — and in doing so ignores both Congress’ intent and the Supreme Court’s ruling on how to implement the law.  

Habitat loss due to human development is one of the primary reasons species become threatened or endangered. The current definition of “harm” under the ESA prohibits significant habitat modification that kills or injures ESA listed species by removing necessities such as food and shelter.  

“The consideration of habitat loss as “harm” is an integral reason that the ESA has a 99% success rate of saving imperiled species,” said Sierra Weaver, senior attorney at Defenders. “Removing it would put the 90% of listed species threatened by habitat loss on the fast-track toward extinction. It is difficult to overstate how disastrous this would be — healthy and diverse wildlife and habitats are the foundation of all life on earth and are equally key to human well-being.”

The lawmakers who wrote the ESA gave a clear mandate for habitat conservation. The ESA was passed unanimously by Congress in 1973 with instruction to "provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.” This legacy was further cemented by the Supreme Court’s 1995 ruling in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Greater Oregon which upheld the current interpretation of “harm.”  

“The Trump administration’s attempt to delete the definition of “harm” does not mean that federal agencies can ignore the ESA,” said Weaver. “Unilaterally overturning the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a law is illegal. By excluding habitat modification or degradation from harm, the administration would accelerate the rate of extinction for the very species the law is intended to protect.”

###