The US government is implementing a significant reinterpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), notably narrowing the legal definition of “take” to exclude unintentional harm to protected wildlife. The policy shift was outlined in a memo signed by Brian Nesvik, director of the Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service, and confirmed by officials to AFP on Thursday.
Under the revised guidance, the term “take”—which historically covered pursuing, killing, or capturing a species—is now defined strictly as “affirmative conduct intentionally directed against a particular animal or animals.” Consequently, deaths of protected wildlife resulting from foreseeable risks associated with commercial activities such as logging or fishing would no longer be considered unlawful under the landmark 1973 legislation.
The Interior Department stated that the memorandum accurately reflects the agency’s guidance following the rescission of the regulatory definition of “harm.” Officials emphasized that the ESA prohibition on take still covers direct actions such as harassing, hunting, shooting, wounding, trapping, capturing, or collecting protected wildlife.
This move represents the latest effort by the Trump administration to relax ESA regulations. Last year, the administration announced it would incorporate “economic considerations” when deciding whether to list species as at risk of extinction. Together, these changes effectively overturn five decades of legal precedent regarding the interpretation and application of the law.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has defended the alterations, arguing that the ESA has been “weaponized” to obstruct economic development, diminish competitiveness, and compromise national security. Among the changes, the redefinition of “harm” permits oil drilling, mining, and other industrial activities in endangered habitats, provided they do not directly kill or injure animals. Additionally, the automatic protections extended to species listed as “threatened” have been halted.
In a separate action, the administration announced the reduction of two large protected land areas in Utah by more than 90%, opening millions of acres for fossil fuel extraction and mining.
Legal opposition emerged immediately. Last week, attorneys general from 20 Democratic-led states and Washington, DC, filed lawsuits challenging the overhaul. One legal action targets the redefinition of “harm,” while a second challenges the removal of protections for newly threatened species and the new criteria used to designate critical habitats.
“The Trump administration is trying to undermine the law, the will of Congress and the will of the people, who overwhelmingly support protections for endangered species,” said Washington Attorney General Nick Brown. “Instead of stewardship, this administration’s approach to our land, to our water is one of exploitation,” he added.
Interesting how quickly they expanded this to Utah lands. Is this just about removing endangered species designations broadly?
So logging companies can now clear-cut habitats as long as the animals die ‘accidentally’? This undermines the entire ESA.
Does the definition of ‘affirmative conduct’ hold up in court? Seems like a loophole waiting to collapse under scrutiny.
Finally, some common sense. These regulations were choking local industries and mining operations. Economy matters too.
This is a dangerous rollback of protections. Unintentional harm still kills species. I can’t believe this passes legal scrutiny.