Trump administration moves to weaken Endangered Species Act
Laura Lundquist
(Missoula Current) Prompted by two Trump executive orders, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing changes to its Endangered Species Act rules, including one that would potentially reduce protections for species considered to be threatened.
On Wednesday, the Department of the Interior announced a proposal to change four rules related to the Endangered Species Act. The rule changes will be formally announced in Thursday’s Federal Register and a 30-day public comment period will start on Nov. 21.
Two rules deal with the designation of species’ critical habitat, and the changes would factor more economic and national security factors into designation decisions, potentially allowing more area to be excluded from designation. They would also redefine “foreseeable future” such that long-term threats such as climate change are unlikely to be considered.
Another change would eliminate the “blanket rule” related to Section 4(d) of the act that gives most threatened species the same protections as endangered species. Instead, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would develop species-specific rules for any species designated in the future as threatened or any currently threatened species that is reevaluated.
Trump administration officials lauded the changes as an end to regulatory overreach.
“These actions reaffirm our commitment to science-based conservation that works hand-in-hand with America’s energy, agricultural and infrastructure priorities,” said Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik in a statement. “By restoring clarity and predictability, we are giving the regulated community confidence while keeping our focus on recovery outcomes, not paperwork.”
Wildlife advocates, however, responded with alarm.
The Center for Biological Diversity, which has petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service to list several species over the years, said Wednesday that the changes would drive hundreds of species closer to extinction. The organization said the changes would give developers and polluters the power to block habitat protections, overriding the recommendations of scientists. It added that the Endangered Species Act prohibits allowing economic factors to sway whether a species deserves protection. Finally, they say elimination of the blanket rule could make it much harder for threatened species to recover.
A 2021 Congressional report said more than 2,300 species are listed under the Endangered Species Act, 21% of which are considered threatened. In Montana, that includes grizzly bears, bull trout, Canada lynx and wolverines.
“If these Trump proposals had been in place in the 1970s, the only place you’d find a bald eagle today is on the back of a dollar bill,” said Stephanie Kurose, Center for Biological Diversity deputy director. “This plan hacks apart the Endangered Species Act and creates a blueprint for the extinction for some of America’s most beloved wildlife.”
The blanket rule has been in effect almost since the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973. Then, in August 2019, the first Trump administration removed the blanket rule for newly designated species, but it was later reinstated by the Biden administration in April 2024. In response, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Property and Environment Research Center sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, while the American Farm Bureau Federation started its own lawsuit against the Service. Both are still ongoing, although the former case was suspended until October 2026.
This January, President Donald Trump issued the executive order “Unleashing American Energy,” which directed all departments to review agency actions, and consider revising, or rescinding actions that “impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources.” Trump then issued a second executive order a month later that directs all departments to review and rescind regulations that are “based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority.”
As to the first executive order, the critical habitat of certain species can restrict areas that resource extraction industries would like to develop. For example, had the sage grouse been listed throughout the West in 2015, designation of its habitat would have limited oil and gas operations in Wyoming. The new rule would eliminate that kind of restriction.
The Center for Biological Diversity said the proposed change would "make it easier for industry to bulldoze, drill, and destroy critical habitat, while making it harder for animals and plants in need of protection to get the safeguards they deserve.”
In response to the second executive order, the Fish and Wildlife Service wants to eliminate the blanket rule. In the past, the agency has said the blanket rule was consistent with what Congress intended in the Endangered Species Act, but now, it’s saying it has to comply with a recent Supreme Court ruling - Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo - which requires agencies to apply the single “best” reading of their statutory authority. That best reading requires species-specific rulings, according to the agency. This change is also the reason the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation lawsuit was put on hold. If the change goes through, the case becomes moot.
If this proposal is finalized, it would not automatically require the reevaluation of species without species-specific rules, such as the grizzly bear. But the Service said it has “discretion to revise or promulgate species-specific rules at any time if it is necessary and advisable for a threatened species.”
While the administration has sought to diminish the Endangered Species Act, Congress is also considering bills that would make similar changes. In March, Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., introduced the Endangered Species Amendments Act of 2025, one of 17 bills taking aim at the Endangered Species Act. The Amendments Act would slow the process of listing species while fast-tracking delisting. It would put states in charge of recovering threatened species and prohibit judicial review within the five-year monitoring period after delisting.
But the efforts of the Trump administration and Congress don’t reflect the preferences of the American people, according to polls. In late June, the International Fund for Animal Welfare commissioned a poll of around 2,000 people online, which found 78% support the goals of the Endangered Species Act and 84% say the U.S. should focus on preventing endangered species from becoming extinct. That’s not much different than the percentages in a Defenders of Wildlife poll of 1,000 voters in late 2023, which found 84% of respondents support the Endangered Species Act. The margin of error was 3%.
That’s why the National Parks Conservation Association says the proposed changes ignore the will of the people.
“It politicizes the selection process for species recovery and undercuts decades of sound science in decision-making," said Stephanie Adams, National Parks Conservation Association director of wildlife. "The proposed changes, coupled with the mass firing of dedicated staff at U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the National Park Service, put the fate of species like Pacific salmon, the ghost orchid, and the red-cockaded woodpecker in a potentially dire position. Once a species is extinct, it’s gone. Is that the legacy we want to leave behind?”
Contact reporter Laura Lundquist at lundquist@missoulacurrent.com.