The Trump administration has taken new steps to weaken the Endangered Species Act (ESA), aiming to reinstate changes implemented during President Trump’s first term that were later blocked by a federal court. The proposed revisions, announced on Wednesday, are designed to roll back protections for threatened species, a move that has sparked a fierce debate between industry supporters and environmental advocates.
At the heart of the administration’s proposal is the elimination of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s so-called “blanket rule.” This rule automatically grants threatened species the same protections as endangered ones, providing a broad safety net for plants and animals at risk. The Trump administration’s new approach would require agencies to develop species-specific protections, a process that could significantly slow down conservation efforts. Instead of automatic safeguards, individual rules would need to be crafted for each species, potentially delaying critical interventions.
The move is a response to long-standing demands from Republican lawmakers and industries such as oil and gas, mining, and agriculture. These groups argue that the ESA has been applied too expansively, impeding economic development and burdening landowners and businesses with costly restrictions. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum defended the revisions, stating that the administration seeks to restore the ESA to its original intent while balancing the needs of Americans who depend on land and resources for their livelihoods. He said the changes would end “years of legal confusion and regulatory overreach,” providing clarity to states, tribes, landowners, and businesses, while still grounding conservation efforts in “sound science and common sense.”
However, environmentalists have expressed grave concerns about the consequences of these changes. They warn that dismantling the blanket rule could result in years-long delays in protecting vulnerable species such as the monarch butterfly, Florida manatee, California spotted owl, and North American wolverine. Rebecca Riley, managing director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, accused the administration of attempting to reinstate weakened protections that were fought against during Trump’s first term and subsequently reversed by the Biden administration.
Scientific consensus suggests that extinctions are accelerating globally, driven by habitat loss, climate change, and other human-induced pressures. The Trump administration’s prior proposals during its second term had aimed to narrow the definition of “harm” under the ESA, potentially exempting certain logging projects on public lands from species protections. The current proposals continue this trend by introducing economic considerations into decisions about what habitats are deemed critical for species survival—a factor that the original 1973 law explicitly prohibits.
This addition of economic impact analysis could allow activities harmful to species to continue, even after they are officially listed as endangered. Noah Greenwald, co-director of the endangered species program at the Center for Biological Diversity, explained that this would mark a significant departure from current practice. For example, protecting a species like the spotted owl might be weighed against the economic costs of restricting logging, potentially undermining conservation efforts.
One example illustrating the potential impact of these changes is the case of Yarrow’s spiny lizard, native to the Southwest. This species has been severely affected by rising temperatures, pushing its population up mountain slopes toward extinction. A petition filed recently seeks to secure protections and designate critical habitat for the lizard. However, advocates fear that requiring economic impact assessments could delay these protections, especially since climate change—rather than economic factors—is the primary threat to the species. John Wiens, a University of Arizona ecology professor and co-author of the petition, expressed surprise that the species has not already gone extinct, reinforcing the urgency of protective measures.
The Interior Department’s move to roll back the blanket rule followed a lawsuit filed in March by the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. These groups challenged the rule’s legality, arguing it discouraged cooperation from states and landowners in species recovery by maintaining stringent protections even when species were downgraded from endangered to threatened status. Because threatened species automatically receive the same protections as endangered ones under the blanket rule, landowners may feel less incentivized to aid recovery efforts if regulatory burdens remain unchanged.
Jonathan Wood, vice president of PERC, praised the new proposal as a “necessary course correction” that acknowledges the previous rule’s unlawfulness and refocuses the ESA on species recovery. This perspective reflects broader industry and conservative criticism that the ESA, as currently enforced, places excessive restrictions on land use and economic activity.
During Trump’s first term, officials also weakened protections for individual species, including the northern spotted owl and the gray wolf. Both decisions were met with significant