Over 150,000 Americans Oppose Trump Administration’s Unprecedented Effort to Eliminate Habitat Protections for Vulnerable Wildlife

Over 150,000 Americans have opposed a proposed rulemaking by the Trump administration to eliminate major habitat protections for endangered species in the U.S. after it was unveiled in April — and as the period for public input concludes today.

The proposed rule would rescind the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s definitions of what counts as illegal “harm” to threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act. “Harm” is currently defined to include significant habitat modification that kills or injures species by removing necessities such as food and shelter.

“The Trump administration is attempting to dismantle and discredit one of America’s most popular and successful laws,” said Sierra Weaver, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife. “The current definition of ‘harm’ is a large part of what has made the ESA so effective at conserving imperiled species. This isn’t just redefining one word — it is gutting the heart of the Act. It will have cataclysmic consequences to the habitats, lands, and waters that America’s wildlife relies upon, and goes against Congress’ intent for the law.”

The current definition of “harm” is an important tool for habitat conservation that has been in place for over 40 years and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995. It has been integral to the ESA’s role in saving more than 99% of species under its protection including the bald eagle, Florida manatee, gray wolf, and many other iconic American wildlife.

Even with the incredible success of the ESA, over 90% of listed species remain threatened by human-caused habitat destruction. If anything, the case for habitat protection under the ESA has grown even stronger over the years, with mountains of scientific evidence linking habitat and species’ survival.

The ESA was passed by Congress in 1973 with virtually unanimous bipartisan support. The lawmakers behind the ESA knew that scientists — not politicians — should decide whether vulnerable animal and plant species should be protected. In their spirit, three U.S. senators have officially demanded that the Trump administration explain how it came to its determination to eliminate habitat protections for U.S. wildlife and to answer whether industry influence was involved. Additionally, a group of the nation’s leading scientists and experts on wildlife sent a letter to the Trump administration urging it to abandon the proposed rule, which the scientists state “lacks any scientific basis and misinterprets the Endangered Species Act.” And 25 legal scholars expressed “vehement opposition” to the proposed rule in a letter to the administration.

The outpouring of public opposition to the proposed rule change is no surprise. 95% of Americans support the ESA. Most Americans know how important conserving habitats, lands, and waters are to our everyday lives and that protecting them should be a national priority. The stakes aren’t limited to wildlife — when ecosystems degrade, people suffer from threats to clean water, food security, and public health.

###