The Trump administration redefined what it means to “harm” endangered species and their habitats back in July — leading to a challenge from Democratic attorneys general across the country.
Twenty states and Washington, D.C., sued the administration over the change.
The original definition — found in the 1973 Endangered Species Act, or ESA — prohibited “habitat modification or degradation,” stating it could harm or kill endangered animals.
The administration’s new regulations state habitat destruction is not included in the definition of “harm” — essentially opening the floodgates to development in new areas.
“The action returns the interpretation of the ESA back to its actual text and original intent, which will end years of federal overreach,” the Department of the Interior touted in a press release. “Through this action, the Department is delivering the kind of common sense and accountability the American people voted for.”
Pushback from the states
Environmentalists — including Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at Center for Biological Diversity — feel the change is the opposite of “common sense.”
“Habitat destruction is the biggest cause of species endangerment and extinction, so if you completely take away the prohibition on habitat destruction, there’s just no way we’ll be able to save species going forward,” he said.
Greenwald believes the lawsuits “have a good chance,” pointing to the fact that in the 1995 Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon case, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of including habitat destruction in the definition.
“It’s just common sense,” he added. “I think the courts will see that. I’m hopeful that won’t stand, because it will entirely end how we’ve been protecting species and how we’ve been implementing the Endangered Species Act up to this point.”
The Department of the Interior points to a different court case, saying it supports their reasoning.
The 2024 Loper Bright v. Raimondo case came to the conclusion that courts must exercise independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.
“Using the legally justifiable standard, the Services determined that the prior definition of ‘harm’ was an unlawful regulatory intrusion that interfered with private property rights,” the Interior Department said.
The final rule will reduce “unnecessary” permitting, cut compliance costs, and “eliminate confusion” for landowners, small businesses, energy producers, farmers, ranchers and local governments, the department said.
“It brings long overdue financial and regulatory relief to citizens who faced unpredictable delays and unnecessary costs due solely by interpretations that went far beyond the statute,” the press release read.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said that for years, federal agencies “abused” the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses.
“That approach turned routine activity into a regulatory trap, drove up costs that impacted people’s lives, and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended,” he said.
What does it mean for Utah?
The Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office says the Endangered Species Act should be “a framework for recovery, not a permanent designation,” according to its website.
“Unfortunately, species often remain on the list for decades, without proper analysis or in contrast to the best available science,” the guidance says.
The state takes a “management-first” approach — one that quickly delists species after they have recovered rather than keeping them under federal protection indefinitely.
The office pointed to the Ute ladies’-tresses — a rare wildflower — as an example. It has been listed under the ESA for decades “despite scientific evidence demonstrating they exist throughout the West in large, thriving populations.”
“This has adversely affected water and grazing projects throughout the State,” the office said.
The state’s internal posture is opposite of the current lawsuit — shrinking federal involvement, not defending it.
The public lands office did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.