World📡 New York TimesBy Catrin Einhorn and Maxine JoselowJul 10, 2026👁 5 views

Trump Cuts Habitat Protections for Endangered Species

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENTYou have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.

Trump, Ending Decades of Protection, Opens Wild Habitats to Drilling and Mining

The rule change ends a safeguard that had been in place for 50 years and could hasten the demise of imperiled animals.

Listen · 8:35 min
Piping plovers need undisturbed beaches to nest and raise their young.Credit...Dave Sanders for The New York Times

By Catrin Einhorn and Maxine Joselow

July 10, 2026

The Trump administration on Friday moved to open the habitats of imperiled animals to farming, drilling, mining, real estate development and other activities in what environmentalists characterized as the most severe erosion of protections for wildlife in half a century.

It did so by recasting a single word, “harm.”

For more than 50 years, the federal government has used a broader definition of harm to animals under the Endangered Species Act, a bedrock environmental law. It included any significant “modification or degradation” of habitat that kills or injures animals by impairing their ability to eat, shelter or breed.

The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation in 1995, ruling against property owners who argued that harm should only mean directly killing or injuring an endangered animal.

But on Friday, the Interior Department and the Commerce Department announced a final rule that rescinded this longstanding interpretation. Under the rule, destroying an endangered species’ nest or habitat would no longer be considered illegal.

The change could open the door for fossil fuel companies, agricultural interests, land developers and others to disturb or even destroy the habitats of vulnerable species. Many species are already running out of places to live, and the new rule is likely to add extreme pressure, experts said.

Earthjustice, an environmental law firm, said it planned a legal challenge. But if the case were to reach the current Supreme Court, its conservative supermajority could enshrine the change, preventing future administrations from reversing it, said Karrigan Börk, an environmental law professor at University of California Davis.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

    Supported by

    SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

    Advertisement

    SKIP ADVERTISEMENT