For nearly five decades, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) has operated on a simple premise: to save species, you must protect their homes. But a proposed rule from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service threatens to erase that principle by removing habitat destruction from the definition of “harm” — a change that could gut the law’s most effective safeguards.

Since 1975, the term “harm” under the ESA has included not just direct injury or killing of wildlife but also habitat destruction that indirectly causes death or injury. This interpretation was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1995 case *Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon* and has served as a bedrock for protecting species from the slow bleed of environmental degradation. Without it, the loss of habitat — a leading driver of extinction — may no longer count as illegal “take” under the law, Earth Island Journal reports.

The ESA protects species by protecting their ecosystems.

What’s at Stake for Species?

The stakes are immense. Habitat loss is the number one reason most species end up on the ESA list. A 2019 analysis found that 81 percent of species listed between 1975 and 2017 were primarily threatened by habitat degradation. according to Inside Climate News.

Without habitat protections, projects like logging, drilling, or large-scale development could move forward even if they destroy critical habitat, so long as no one directly harms the animal. A nesting area might be bulldozed. A stream vital to spawning fish could be rerouted. Under the proposed rule, these actions might no longer qualify as violations of the ESA.

The ESA has saved 99% of listed species from extinction.

A Shift in Legal Interpretation

The move to rescind the definition of “harm” follows the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo*, which eliminated the longstanding *Chevron* doctrine. Agencies must now prove that their interpretations match the “single, best meaning” of statutory text rather than relying on judicial deference. The Services argue that the ESA’s statutory definition of “take” — which includes “harm” — should be interpreted narrowly to mean direct physical acts against an animal, not indirect impacts like habitat destruction, as detailed in the Federal Register.

But the ESA’s original language was crafted with the understanding that species rely on ecosystems. The statute explicitly calls for conserving not just animals but “the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend.” Narrowing “harm” defies that mission.

A proposed rule would erase habitat from the definition of harm.

Who Benefits and Who Loses?

Industries that see environmental rules as red tape—especially extractive sectors like oil, gas, and timber—stand to benefit. If habitat modification no longer counts as “harm,” fewer permits will be needed. Fewer environmental impact statements will be triggered. And fewer projects will be halted or redesigned to protect at-risk species, Holland & Knight reports.

On the flip side, wildlife could face irreversible consequences. Many species do not die from bulldozers directly but from what happens after—the fragmentation of forests, loss of breeding grounds, or degradation of food sources. According to ACOEL, the ESA has prevented extinction in 99 percent of species listed under its protections, a success rate attributed largely to its habitat-based approach.

Supreme Court precedent once upheld the current harm definition.

Legal and Scientific Pushback

Legal scholars warn that removing habitat protection contradicts decades of precedent and the text of the law itself. Conservation biologists argue that ignoring indirect harm undermines ecological science. Even the agencies proposing the rule acknowledge that “harass” might still apply in some habitat disruption cases—an admission that habitat and behavior are intertwined, Environmental Law and Policy Monitor reports.

Meanwhile, public opposition to the change is mounting. Polls show broad, bipartisan support for the Endangered Species Act.

Environmental impact assessments would be reduced under the redefined ESA.

A Future Without Habitat Protection?

The proposed redefinition of “harm” may seem like a technical adjustment. But for imperiled wildlife, it could mark the end of meaningful protection. If finalized, the ESA’s power to defend habitats could vanish overnight.

This isn't just a regulatory tweak. It’s a seismic shift in how the U.S. protects its most vulnerable animals and plants. It means we no longer recognize that killing a species can happen with concrete and chainsaws—without ever pulling a trigger.

Click below to make a difference.