USFWS challenged again over threatened species protections
Laura Lundquist
(Missoula Current) Several conservation groups are suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after the Trump administration reversed an agency rule that has helped protect threatened species for decades.
Last week, six conservation organizations sued Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and the Fish and Wildlife Service in Butte federal district court for repealing a rule that had protected members of a threatened species from harm or death. The repeal is the second attempt of a Trump administration to eliminate the rule and lessen protection for threatened species.
“Wildlife needs help as soon as we recognize it’s in trouble. This rollback opens the door to killing newly listed threatened animals that would otherwise be protected. A species lost to extinction can never be brought back,” said Ben Greuel, Sierra Club’s national wildlife campaign manager, in a statement.
The organizations include the Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians, National Parks Conservation Association, Conservation Council for Hawai‘i, Save the Manatee Club and Humane World for Animals, formerly the Humane Society of the United States.
The “Blanket 4(d) Rule” has existed since 1975, two years after Congress passed the Endangered Species Act, to give threatened species some of the protections that the law requires for endangered species. In the decades since, the Blanket 4(d) Rule has kept the populations of more than 300 threatened species, such as the grizzly bear, Canada lynx and Florida manatees, from declining further.
The Endangered Species Act makes the “take” - killing or harassing - of endangered species illegal and requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to identify and protect the habitat of endangered species. Because one of the goals of the Endangered Species Act is to keep threatened species from diminishing to the point that they qualify as endangered species, Section 4(d) of the ESA requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to develop rules to do that.
So the Service wrote the Blanket 4(d) Rule to extend the "take" protections to threatened species, although the agency can develop rules that are specific to certain species. But writing a new rule can take months, sometimes years, so the Blanket Rule protects species until the Service can finalize special rules, which it’s done for about one-quarter of threatened species.
In 1993, the Blanket Rule was challenged in court but was upheld by a D.C. appeals court.
Then in 2019, during the first Trump administration, the Fish and Wildlife Service repealed the Blanket 4(d) Rule, saying all newly listed threatened species would have no protection until the agency developed species-specific rules for each. However, development of any rule would have to consider economic factors, which could limit or prohibit any protections. Seven conservation groups, including four of the current plaintiffs, and 17 states sued the Fish and Wildlife Service, saying the changes would make it tougher to protect wildlife now in the midst of a global extinction crisis.
After the Biden administration took over in 2020, the Fish and Wildlife Service said it would reconsider the repeal. In 2024, the agency reinstated the Blanket Rule, saying the blanket approach was “superior” to crafting species-specific rules for every threatened species for several reasons, including the time required and the possibility of species’ populations declining further in the meantime.
That prompted the Missoula-based Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to sue the Fish and Wildlife Service. But once Trump was back in office in 2025, the Fish and Wildlife Service flip-flopped again. It proposed another repeal a year ago, so the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation lawsuit was paused.
Public opposition to the repeal was strong during public comment periods. Out of almost 350,000 comments, a majority disagreed with the repeal. That coincides with several polls that have shown that Americans like the Endangered Species Act. A June 2025 survey of responses between 1996 and 2025 shows support has been consistently high, around 84%.
Even so, the repeal was finalized on July 21, and now the lawsuit is moving ahead, this time with the roles reversed. RMEF is now an intervener on behalf of the defendant, Fish and Wildlife Service and the six conservation organizations are the plaintiffs, represented by Earthjustice.
In September, almost two dozen states filed their own complaints against the Fish and Wildlife Service, challenging not only the Blanket 4(d) Rule repeal, but also the agency’s redefinition of what counts as “harm” to a listed species.
The plaintiffs say this new repeal has nothing to do with interpreting the Endangered Species Act and everything to do with Trump’s executive order “Unleashing American Energy,” which requires agencies to eliminate rules that “impose an undue burden” on energy extraction. Because of that, the Fish and Wildlife Service didn’t provide a reasoned explanation for the change, unlike what was provided in 2024.
“When federal agencies issue rules, they must explain how their choices relate to facts on the ground. That didn’t happen here,” said Earthjustice attorney Clay Samford. “There’s no rational explanation for upending a system that has, for more than half a century, successfully protected threatened wildlife. This action cuts against the very spirit of the law, which was created to ensure species are given a fighting chance of survival.”
The plaintiffs also say that requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service to write separate 4(d) rules for each threatened species is not financially prudent and would actually drain the agency’s resources. Agency employees are already having to research more than 400 species that are being considered for listing. Meanwhile, because of DOGE and other Trump administration actions, the agency has lost 36% of its staff between 2024 and 2026, including 1,900 scientists. Only a skeleton crew remains to carry out the work.
The plaintiffs add that requiring an economic analysis runs contrary to the Endangered Species Act, which defines conservation as “the use of all methods and procedures” to recover a species.
“Not only does this definition make no mention of considering economic factors, it directs that conservation encompasses whatever is required to recover a species, regardless of cost,” the plaintiffs said in their complaint.
Earthjustice is also representing some of the same plaintiffs in a lawsuit that takes the Fish and Wildlife Service to task for changing how it defines “harm” when it comes to the habitat of listed species. In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of habitat destruction as a type of “harm.” However, in July, the Trump administration eliminated that aspect of harm, opening the way for extractive industry to destroy critical habitat, even if it contributes to species extinction.
Contact reporter Laura Lundquist at lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.