July 15, 2026 — By altering the interpretation of a single word in the Endangered Species Act, the Trump administration has made what could be a sweeping change to how wildlife is protected in the United States.
That word is “harm.” For more than 50 years, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service defined harm to refer to anything that injures or kills a protected organism, including “significant habitat modification or degradation” that might impact a species’ ability to feed, reproduce or seek shelter.
But now, the federal government has officially rescinded that definition — a move that is already being challenged in court.
“This action restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed,” Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said in a statement Friday, when the change was announced.
“The final rule will restore the definition of ‘harm’ to its original intent as written under the ESA, and will maintain protections for endangered species while reducing unnecessary or duplicative permitting requirements, cutting compliance costs, and eliminating confusion for Americans,” a representative for NOAA Fisheries said in an emailed statement Tuesday.
But environmental groups worry the rule change, which goes into effect on September 14, could destroy the wild places that endangered species depend on, undermining the protections that have helped sustain them.
Shortly after the new rule was published in the federal register Tuesday, the law firm Earthjustice, alongside more than half a dozen other environmental groups, filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Seattle against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries (also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service).
Kristen Boyles, an attorney with the group, told NPR that they’re contesting the change on various levels. “The agencies haven’t explained themselves adequately,” she says. “Making this kind of dramatic change doesn’t make any legal sense because it goes against the fundamental purpose and spirit of the statute itself. All of those things make it an unreasoned and unreasonable decision.”