Endangered Means Nothing? New Rule Could Gut Key Wildlife Protections

A newly proposed federal rule could significantly weaken longstanding wildlife protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by redefining the term “harm” to exclude habitat destruction.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration jointly released the proposal, which seeks to reverse a decades-old interpretation that includes habitat degradation as a form of harm to endangered and threatened species. Under the proposed changes, only direct actions—such as hunting or physically injuring a species—would be considered harmful.

This shift carries major implications for wildlife conservation and veterinary professionals who work with or study threatened species. Habitat loss remains the leading driver of extinction risk for wildlife across North America, and many experts warn that narrowing the definition of harm could severely limit the government’s ability to protect critical ecosystems.

“The vast majority of imperiled wildlife listed under the ESA are there because of loss of habitat,” said Andrew Bowman, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife. “Stripping habitat destruction from the definition of harm is not just a legal change—it’s a biological one, with potentially irreversible consequences.”

The proposed redefinition also contradicts a 1995 Supreme Court decision that upheld the inclusion of habitat modification in the meaning of harm. That ruling affirmed that indirect actions—such as building a dam or clearing forest—could cause significant damage to species by disrupting their ability to live and reproduce.

Conservation groups and legal advocates argue that the change would roll back decades of progress. “This proposal represents the most serious threat to the integrity of the Endangered Species Act since its inception in 1973,” said Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice. “It fundamentally alters how the U.S. protects wildlife, especially species already struggling due to habitat loss.”

Supporters of the change, including energy and development stakeholders, argue that the current language imposes unnecessary restrictions on land use. However, opponents maintain that easing these restrictions prioritizes short-term economic interests over long-term ecological health.

Veterinary professionals working in conservation, wildlife health, and ecosystem management may be especially affected, as habitat integrity is a cornerstone of species survival and health. From a One Health perspective, the intersection of human activity, wildlife well-being, and environmental stewardship is more critical than ever.

Public comments on the proposed rule will be accepted for 30 days before the agencies decide whether to finalize the change.

Let them know your thoughts on this by May 19, 2025 : Regulations.gov