US proposes eroding species protections
The Trump administration wants to change the definition of 'harm' in the Environmental Protection Act to allow habitat damage


What happened
The Trump administration Wednesday proposed changing the definition of "harm" in the 1973 Environmental Protection Act to exclude damaging the habitats where endangered species live, siding with businesses who view the current longstanding definition as a burdensome regulation that limits logging, oil drilling, mining and housing development. Under the proposed new definition, harm would refer only to activities that deliberately kill or injure an endangered animal, like hunting or trapping.
Who said what
Narrowing the definition of "harm" to exclude habitat degradation "makes sense in light of the well-established, centuries-old understanding" of the word, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service said in their proposed rule.
Habitat loss is the "single biggest reason that many species face extinction," The New York Times said. The proposed change "cuts the heart out of the Endangered Species Act," said Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity, per The Washington Post. Kristen Boyles, a lawyer at Earthjustice, called the new definition "nonsensical both legally and biologically," allowing "a developer to drain a pond where an endangered species of turtle or fish lived, and that wouldn't be harm."
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
What next?
The public has 30 days to submit comments on the rule before it is finalized. Oil industry advocates applauded the proposal. Environmental groups vowed to challenge it in court, pointing out that the Supreme Court upheld the more expansive definition of "harm" in 1995.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Peter has worked as a news and culture writer and editor at The Week since the site's launch in 2008. He covers politics, world affairs, religion and cultural currents. His journalism career began as a copy editor at a financial newswire and has included editorial positions at The New York Times Magazine, Facts on File, and Oregon State University.
-
Search for survivors continues after Texas floods
Speed Read A total of 82 people are confirmed dead, including 28 children
-
'It's America that refuses to listen and learn'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Will Europe pivot to Asia on trade?
Today's Big Question It could be an attempt to sidestep the impact of Trump's tariffs
-
Search for survivors continues after Texas floods
Speed Read A total of 82 people are confirmed dead, including 28 children
-
How carbon credits and offsets could help and hurt the climate
The explainer The credits could be allowing polluters to continue polluting
-
This Atlantic hurricane season is expected to be above average
Under the radar Prepare for strong storms in the coming months
-
EPA is reportedly killing Energy Star program
speed read The program for energy-efficient home appliances has saved consumers billions in energy costs since its 1992 launch
-
The worst coral bleaching event breaks records
The Explainer Bleaching has now affected 84% of the world's coral reefs
-
Anti-anxiety drug has a not-too-surprising effect on fish
Under the radar The fish act bolder and take more risks
-
Electric ferries are becoming the next big environmental trend
Under the Radar From Hong Kong to Lake Tahoe, electric ferries are the new wave
-
Scientists invent a solid carbon-negative building material
Under the radar Building CO2 into the buildings