WASHINGTON, D.C., July 14 – A coalition of environmental organizations has filed a lawsuit against the administration of Donald Trump, challenging a proposed regulatory change that would rescind the long-standing definition of “harm” under U.S. endangered species protections.
The legal action, brought in federal court, argues that the move would significantly weaken enforcement of the Endangered Species Act by limiting the scope of activities considered harmful to protected wildlife. For decades, the definition of “harm” has included not only direct injury or killing of species but also habitat destruction that indirectly leads to their decline.
Environmental advocates contend that removing habitat modification from the definition would undermine one of the law’s most powerful conservation tools.
This change strips away critical protections that have safeguarded species and ecosystems for generations,
said an attorney representing the plaintiffs.
Without habitat protections, the law becomes far less effective.
The administration has defended the proposal as part of a broader effort to clarify regulatory language and reduce what it describes as overreach that can hinder economic development. Officials argue that the existing interpretation has created legal uncertainty for landowners, energy developers, and infrastructure projects.
The lawsuit names both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, which are responsible for implementing the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiffs are seeking to block the rule change, asserting that it violates the statute’s intent and decades of legal precedent, including interpretations upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Legal experts say the case could have far-reaching implications for environmental regulation in the United States. If the revised definition is allowed to stand, it may limit the government’s ability to regulate land use activities that affect critical habitats, potentially accelerating biodiversity loss.
Industry groups, however, have welcomed the proposal, arguing that a narrower definition of harm would streamline permitting processes and reduce compliance costs. The debate reflects a broader tension between conservation priorities and economic development interests that has long shaped environmental policy in the U.S.
The case is expected to move through the federal court system in the coming months, with potential appeals likely regardless of the initial outcome. In the meantime, the dispute adds to a growing list of legal challenges facing the administration’s environmental agenda, underscoring the high stakes surrounding the future of species protection in the country.