Since its creation in 1973, the law on endangered species has served as a legal rampart against the extinction of many animal and plant species in the United States. This federal text protects not only individuals, but also the territories essential to their survival. In 2025, the Trump administration proposed to return to this balance by redefining which constitutes damage to fauna. Behind this technical reform, the future of many fragile ecosystems is played out, at a time when world biodiversity continues to decline.
This proposal, formalized by the federal services of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, is based on a more strict interpretation of the legal definition of the word “Take” (take). According to the Ministry of the Interior, this reading corresponds to “the best possible meaning of the text”, after the decision Loper Bright v. Raimondo of 2024, which ended the principle of Chevron Deference. The text specifies that the administration will no longer protect the habitats if they are not directly linked to a voluntary action against the animal itself.
This regulatory turnaround is part of a broader deregulation strategy. As CBS News reports, President Trump has multiplied measures in favor of extractive and building industries, notably by removing environmental constraints deemed “hostile to growth”.
Biodiversity defenders denounce a serious threat
For environmentalists, this reform affects one of the foundations of conservation. Loss of habitat is the first cause of disappearance of species, recalls Brett Hartl of the Center for Biological Diversity. If the modification is adopted, the protection of crucial territories for reproduction, food or migration will therefore no longer be ensured. This would open the way for construction, drilling or deforestation projects on vital areas.
Many specialists evoke a dangerous backtrack. Noah Greenwald, director of programs on endangered species, alerted in AP News: if companies destroy the habitats of Florida panthers or spotted owls without explicit intention to harm them, these species are likely to lose all protection. Even the Lamantin or the white head pygargue could have suffered the consequences of this reform.
The island of Hawaii, which alone concentrates 40% of endangered species in the United States, could also see its biodiversity fall quickly. Pollinizing insects like certain endemic bees, already weakened by the urbanization of the coast, would no longer have sufficiently protected refuge areas. Maxx Philipps, regional director of the Center for Biological Diversity, underlines that ”Habitat and Survival are inseparable”.
The law on threatened species becomes a political battlefield
The reform proposal deeply divides the American political class. For some Republicans, such as representative Bruce Westerman, decades of legal proceedings have misguided the law. It offers a more favorable amended version for economic development, without excessive environmental hinders.
But on the side of lawyers, prudence dominates. Patrick Parenteau, professor emeritus in environmental law at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, recalls that the Supreme Court validated the current definition of “HARM” in 1995. Any attempt to bypass it risks aroused disputes. In the event of the adoption of the reform, Earthjustice will engage in a legal battle.
As NPR points out, species like Atlantic salmon, the red head peak or the Grizzly have seen their population stabilize thanks to the prohibition to modify their habitat. Without this measure, the gains obtained in fifty years could be quickly erased.
The text is now open to public consultation for 30 days. For defenders of nature, this period will therefore be decisive. They hope to mobilize opinion to maintain a legal framework which has saved more than 1,700 animal and plant species since 1973.
