Three Democratic U.S. senators are pressing the Trump administration for explanations regarding its examination of a proposed rule that seeks to remove habitat protections for endangered and threatened species. The senators are also questioning whether this new rule was influenced by industry input. Senators Adam Schiff, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Cory Booker sent an inquiry letter to the Departments of Interior and Commerce on Monday. The correspondence also seeks clarification on how the administration intends to safeguard species if the rules are amended.
The key concern revolves around the established definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act. Historically, this term has encompassed the destruction or alteration of habitats critical to species survival—a primary driver of extinction. Recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along with the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed a rule that suggests habitat modification should not be seen as harm since it does not equate to the direct targeting of a species, known as “take.” This proposal has been met with criticism from environmentalists who argue that historically, the definition of “take” includes actions harming species, a view upheld by the Supreme Court.
Under this new rule interpretation, industries and developers could claim they did not intentionally harm endangered species, prompting activists to express concerns about the potential for species, such as the Florida panther and spotted owl, to face extinction threats. Moreover, progress on recovering species once facing endangerment, such as bald eagles, gray wolves, Florida manatees, and humpback whales, might be jeopardized.
The senators criticized the proposal, describing it as undermining the Endangered Species Act. Their letter asserts that survival of species is contingent on having safe habitats. Additionally, the letter queries how the Administration plans to enforce the Act amid efforts to reduce federal staffing and funding, led by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.
Currently, the proposed rule is open for public comment over a 30-day period. Environmentalists have pledged to contest any adoption of the rule through legal means. In response to the letter, the Department of Interior indicated that it does not comment on congressional correspondence but duly considers all such messages. Meanwhile, the Department of Commerce did not reply when approached for comments on Monday.