Trump’s New ESA Rules Undermine Species Protection

The Trump Administration is moving forward with four rulemakings that would substantially weaken the Endangered Species Act. These actions would largely restore regulations that Trump originally issued in 2019 but were reversed in 2024. EPIC is working with our partners at Earthjustice to drive comments on the proposed rule, which you can do here. 

1. Eliminate Automatic Protections for Threatened Species

The Endangered Species Act allows species to be listed as either “threatened” or “endangered,” with endangered listings reserved for species closer to an extinction event and threatened species that are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Existing regulations provide that threatened species enjoy the same automatic protections under the Endangered Species Act as endangered species—generally, that humans are forbidden from “taking” a listed species. The Trump Administration is looking to upend this practice by rescinding the automatic protections for threatened species. And if they are successful, this will mean that threatened species will enjoy significantly reduced protections under the Act. So species that are considered for listing, like the California Spotted Owl, may be listed, but without take protection, the conservation benefit of a listing is significantly constrained.

Here’s another way to think of it: The northern spotted owl was listed as “threatened” in 1990. Despite being listed as threatened, the northern spotted owl has historically enjoyed the full suite of protections under the Act, including the “take prohibition.” This take prohibition has been instrumental in protecting the northern spotted owl and its habitat, both in enabling lawsuits by public interest groups (like EPIC) to enjoin logging activities that would harm the species and by encouraging the Forest Service and private timber companies to employ better protections for the species (lest they be dragged into court). Imagine now if the Trump rule had been in place in 1990: The spotted owl may have been listed, but without the take prohibition, its listing would be toothless. Timber companies and the Forest Service are then legally allowed to continue on liquidating mature and old-growth forests without consequence. 

2. What is the “Foreseeable Future” for Threatened Species?

Again, Trump targets threatened species. In addition to removing protections for threatened species, Trump’s rule revisions would make their listing more difficult. Threatened species are those that are likely to become endangered in the “foreseeable future”—but what does that mean?  Under the existing rule, “The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the Services can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats.” Under the proposed revisions, “The term foreseeable future extends only so far into the future as the Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely.” So, “reasonably reliable predictions” versus “likely” threats. This may seem like a small distinction, but in practice, this could be big. Take, for example, climate change impacts on a species. Climate models vary, and the effects of climate change in the future will depend on what actions we take now. We can make reasonable predictions that can capture nuance and recognize the probabilistic nature of climate change. Under the Trump rules, however, we need a higher degree of certainty—that certain effects are “likely” to occur. We expect this minor change in language to have major implications in listing decisions.

3. Constrict Critical Habitat 

The Endangered Species Act works to both protect individual members of a species (by prohibiting the “taking” of an individual, as discussed above) and by forcing more robust consideration of impacts to its “critical habitat.” The Trump Administration’s rule revision would make it easier not to designate critical habitat in the first place—and thus, in doing so, avoid future consideration of impacts to that habitat. Trump’s rule would elevate economic considerations over biological needs, ultimately resulting in reduced size and effectiveness of critical habitat designations and increased habitat fragmentation. In doing so, the Trump rule undermines the entire purpose of the Act: to conserve ecosystems and recover species, not to reduce protections for industry convenience.