Making America Polluted Again is not in the public’s interest.

By Henry Clement— With abridgments from Catrin Einhorn and Maxine Joselow, NYTimes article.

On July 10, 2026, former President Trump moved to weaken wildlife protections by redefining “harm” under the Endangered Species Act. Previously, “harm” included habitat destruction that could indirectly injure or kill animals, a definition upheld by the Supreme Court in 1995. The new rule eliminates that interpretation, meaning that damage to habitats. Such destruction of nests would no longer be considered illegal. Thereby opening protected areas to development and industry. The Trump administration aimed to open habitats of endangered species to activities such as farming, drilling, mining, and development. A shift that environmentalists describe as a major rollback of wildlife protections. This was accomplished by redefining the word “harm.”

A New York Times poll of 200,000 respondents found that 99% were against Trump’s “harm” proposals. For over 50 years, the Endangered Species Act has considered harm to include habitat destruction that impairs animals’ ability to survive. A definition already upheld by the Supreme Court. The new federal rule reverses that interpretation, meaning that destroying an endangered species’ habitat or nest may no longer be considered harm. Critics warn this could allow industries to damage already shrinking habitats.

Fossil fuel companies, agricultural interests, and land developers applauded. But this is what many describe as an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion by Trump-appointed officials. This action risks permanently undoing longstanding protections. Such assaults threaten institutions, public lands, public health, science, and the environment, with ramifications beyond our borders.