What proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act mean for wildlife

From bald eagles to grizzly bears, many iconic American species at risk of extinction have bounced back thanks to the Endangered Species Act, commonly known as the ESA. But the act’s language and its execution have been revised several times since it went into effect in 1973, and now more changes are on the way.

The Trump administration has proposed four regulatory modifications that would make it easier to consider economic issues when deciding whether and how to protect a species. What’s more, the Endangered Species Committee, a group long referred to as the God Squad, recently overruled ESA protections for marine wildlife in the Gulf of America, as the administration renamed the U.S.-controlled waters of the Gulf of Mexico in 2025, which could clear the way for offshore drilling.

The ESA prohibits the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered wildlife, or harming them by modifying their habitats. It also requires that federal agencies consult with either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (also called NOAA Fisheries), the two wildlife agencies that administer the law, in order to avoid authorizing, funding, or participating in activities that could jeopardize an endangered species or its habitat. In practice, that has meant plans to construct new developments—like a sports park or an industrial building—that could encroach on an endangered species’ habitat need to pass through an often years-long permitting process before moving forward or being rejected.

The ESA initially protected close to 100 species, from Florida panthers to the whooping crane. Now, more than a thousand animal species are listed as endangered, along with over 760 plant species. And at least 300 additional animals and more than 150 plants are classified as threatened, meaning they are “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.” (The ESA’s list is distinct from the IUCN global red list of threatened and endangered species, which does not grant legal protections in the United States, though there is some overlap.) The Center for Biological Diversity estimates that the ESA has prevented almost 300 species from going extinct, including the California condor and the Hawaiian monk seal.

The measure was signed into law by President Richard Nixon with bipartisan support, during a nationwide reckoning with environmental pollution and the decline of native species, but tensions have long shadowed it, particularly between groups dedicated to protecting wildlife and those invested in economic development.

The first Trump administration made several ESA regulatory revisions in 2019 and 2020, reducing regulatory burdens on industries; many, though not all, of those modifications were reversed during the Biden administration. Now, some of the changes from 2019 and 2020 are on their way back. Last November, the second Trump administration proposed four regulatory rules, largely restoring the 2019-2020 revisions, that would affect how species get listed as endangered and what kinds of safeguards apply to their habitats. One additional change, proposed in April 2025 and approved this July, narrows the definition of “harm” which could allow for more economic development on species’ habitats. Other changes, which are expected to be finalized soon, would roll back the “blanket rule” that threatened species deserve the same protections as endangered ones. 

The proposed changes to the ESA’s regulations, which govern how agencies interpret and apply the act, do not require congressional approval. However, a recent House bill tried to rewrite the law itself in lockstep with the proposed changes to consider the economic effects of regulations in decision-making. It failed to win enough support for a vote on Earth Day.

Government officials say that the changes would honor the original 1973 law and reduce overreach, with Fish and Wildlife Service director Brian Nesvik praising them as a “commitment to science-based conservation that works hand in hand with America’s energy, agricultural, and infrastructure priorities.”

(The extraordinary life and quiet death of the world’s largest iceberg)

But conservation advocates argue that there are no upsides here for endangered or threatened animals or their ecosystems. In their view, the only beneficiaries are people and companies with interests in oil, gas, mining, timber, and agriculture projects that could encroach upon species and their habitats. “What we have been seeing in recent years, and some of the recent proposed revisions, is that economics would play an outsized role, and that just does not align with the core tenets of the Endangered Species Act,” says Leigh Henry, director of wildlife conservation at the World Wildlife Fund.

Here are major proposed changes to how the ESA is regulated and how each could affect endangered or threatened species:

Change #1: How a species gets on the list

As things stand today, it’s not easy to get a species listed for protection. The process can take years or even decades for both plants and animals, especially when there is political pushback, says Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity, who co-authored a 2016 study showing that the average time from consideration of a species to an ESA listing is 12.1 years.

Those considerations are informed by scientific and commercial data—such as information from fisheries harvests when the harvests could threaten a species—which federal agencies use in the process of listing a species or designating its critical habitat. Economic concerns, like whether a species lives above a particularly valuable oil deposit, are not considered. The proposed revisions would change that—a move that could further slow the process of listing a species, says Greenwald.

Imagine an animal—let’s say a fish that lives in a stream near a profitable chemical factory. If scientists notice a decline in the population linked to chemicals in the water, perhaps, under the new regulations, it would be harder to get that species listed, as it would interfere with the operation of the factory, which uses that stream for dumping waste.

But the changes don’t only involve how a species gets on the list; they also cover how it gets off. Some changes could actually expedite the delisting process in certain scenarios. The proposed regulations would direct the wildlife agencies to consider only those factors that led to the listing of the species in the first place, rather than the degree to which the species has recovered.

So let’s say the factory goes out of business on its own, and the chemicals stop flowing into the water. The fish population could still be struggling. But the wildlife agencies could nonetheless choose to delist that species, removing its ESA protections, because the original hazard is gone.

Change #2: Eliminating the 'blanket rule' for threatened species

Currently, species that are threatened receive the same protections as endangered ones. For example, under a rule that was active under the Biden administration, ranchers in the range of the threatened lesser prairie chicken had to follow a “grazing management plan” for their cattle, which can disturb the birds and their habitat, says Jonathan Wood, vice president of law and policy at the independent nonprofit Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), whose mission is to create market solutions for conservation. “That imposed costs and other burdens on ranchers that would eat into their business and could make them worse off as the population continues to rebound.” (In response to a court order, the Fish and Wildlife Service delisted the lesser prairie chicken in February 2026.) 

But under the proposed revision, each threatened species would receive potentially narrower protections. The update is drawing applause from free-market advocates like Wood. “Applying the same approach to every species, regardless of its needs or what the science says, it’s just a bad strategy,” says Wood, who wants to see states and landowners rewarded as species recover by having certain regulations on them lifted. (This incentive system is not in the current White House proposal, but Wood says removal of the blanket rule could open up the possibility later on.)

PERC’s view is that the ranchers could have received specific recovery goals to work toward, such as a specified population increase of a species, and then been freed of certain regulatory burdens and restrictions when they met those goals.

Nevertheless, the removal of the blanket rule is concerning to other conservationists. One species that is listed as threatened and could be harmed by the change is the West Indian manatee, says Jane Davenport, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife. In 2025, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to split this species into two: a threatened Florida manatee and an endangered Antillean manatee (a move that has not yet been finalized). Without the blanket rule, the threatened species may not have full protections against boat strikes or water pollution leading to algal blooms, which would harm its foraging beds. “Although the Florida manatee has made significant recovery strides, its status is far from secure,” she says.

Change #3: Defining a species’ critical habitat

One of the main pain points for critics of the current ESA is the way “critical habitats” are identified for endangered species. Critical habitats are the environments that sustain a plant’s or animal’s well-being. For example, a freshwater fish population cannot improve without clean fresh water, complete with ample food.

While a critical-habitat designation does not necessarily prevent private or public development, the ESA does require consultation with federal agencies if landowners need federal funding or permissions for a project. Development projects can stall over issues of an endangered or threatened species’ critical habitat—like those in California’s San Bernardino County, which were delayed or canceled in the early 2000s because of protections for the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. The city of Colton, east of Los Angeles, which has a federally designated fly preserve, clashed with Fish and Wildlife over federal protections for the rare insect. As reported in the Los Angeles Times in 2003, plans for a $10 million sports park had to be canceled because flies were found at the site; other projects also stalled for years. Then, in 2015, the city came to an agreement with the federal government to mark off 50 acres of fly breeding habitat in exchange for 416 acres that could be developed, according to the San Bernardino Sun.

The act allows for protection of both the current habitat of an endangered or threatened species and surrounding habitats that might be suitable at some point in the future, even if they are not yet occupied by those species. The upshot is that larger areas of land are protected; if a fish rebounds in the lower reaches of a stream, one day it may expand farther upstream.

(The world’s plastic pollution crisis, explained)

The administration's proposed changes create significant hurdles that could effectively prevent unoccupied habitats from being considered critical for an endangered or threatened species.  One key example is the jaguar, which used to frequent territory as far north as the Grand Canyon. The jaguar is endangered and has 640,000 acres of designated critical habitat in Arizona. The vast majority of that area is not occupied by jaguars. These days, U.S. jaguar sightings are extremely rare; only five have been seen in southern Arizona in the past 15 years, according to the University of Arizona’s Wild Cat Center. Conservationists say preserving critical habitat, even if unoccupied, is essential to restoring the big cats to the area.

It’s possible, under the new rules, that designated critical habitats could shrink. This happened before during a similar regulatory environment.

Conservation groups have long objected to Arizona’s proposed Rosemont copper mine project near Tucson because of its potential harm to endangered species and their critical habitats, including the jaguar; in 2019, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit for the mine, resulting in more lawsuits. Though the copper mine controversy is not over, a 2023 court decision led the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reduce the jaguar’s critical habitat area by more than 60,000 acres. And in 2021, the agency also took away 50,000 acres of New Mexico's areas of critical habitat for the jaguars. (Many of the first Trump administration’s regulatory changes to the ESA were not rolled back until 2024.)

Conservationists are also protesting a move made by Fish and Wildlife officials in April 2025 that proposed limiting the regulatory definition of “harm” in the ESA to the species themselves, and not allowing the word to apply to habitats. This change has recently been finalized; it will go into effect on September 14, though several environmental groups have filed a lawsuit to stop it.  “‘Harm’ would need to be things that directly impact a species, and meaning, like, take or harm or harass or poach,” explains Leah Gerber, professor of conservation science at Arizona State University.

Henry draws an analogy to her own home, which is effectively her “habitat.” “If my house is destroyed, I have no way to live, nowhere to survive,” she says. “If you don't consider harm to habitat as harm to a species, that’s completely illogical and, again, runs counter to the clear intent and clear language of the Endangered Species Act.” Ultimately, the change could make it easier to get permits for projects that degrade a habitat where an endangered species might recover successfully.

Change #4: Approvals for development projects

Conservationists consider ESA’s Section 7 to be at the heart of the law because it requires the administering agencies to ensure activities, such as oil and gas drilling, won't be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its habitat. There are now a few proposed changes to how key terms in this section are defined, small tweaks that could prove consequential.

In the past, the agencies would consider both indirect and direct “effects of the action,” such as effects of developing a piece of land. For example, chemical runoff dumped into a stream would be a “direct effect” on the fish, and greenhouse gases emitted by a factory, contributing to climate change, would be an “indirect” effect.

Now, the proposed changes would further alter the definition of “effects of the action” to downplay indirect effects and underscore that the direct effects should be “reasonably certain” to occur.

Conservationists say that approach opens the door to arguments that effects of climate change will not be “reasonably certain” to occur, therefore limiting the ability to mitigate harmful emissions.

The changes “make it easier for projects to proceed without sufficient consideration,” Davenport says.

The fate of this proposed change is particularly murky. That’s because the requirement that a consequence be “reasonably certain to occur” was overturned by a federal judge in California earlier this year, in response to a lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and other conservation groups in 2024. “It’s unclear what will happen now because the new proposed regulations from the Trump administration again attempt to put this standard in place,” Greenwald says.

What’s next for the ESA?

After the federal government proposed the new rules in November, it opened a 30-day comment period for input from the public; the feedback can be found online. When asked for comment about the proposed changes, Fish and Wildlife pointed toward a press release and its website detailing the desired revisions. NOAA Fisheries declined to comment.

During the public comment period, a coalition of 30 conservation groups helped submit more than 387,000 comments opposing the changes, according to the Animal Welfare Institute. At the same time, industry groups like the Western Energy Alliance trade association praised the administration’s move as “rightfully redressing problems with ESA and reducing overreaching regulatory burdens,” and a coalition led by the State Policy Network’s Center for Practical Federalism—that wants to limit federal reach when it comes to defining critical habitats—insisted, “States and local governments should be in the driver’s seat because they have the strongest interest in managing lands within their borders and the deepest knowledge of the trade-offs.”

Meanwhile, the proposal to remove the blanket rule,  has been reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs—a signal that it could be finalized soon. Conservationists, however, remain optimistic that the proposed changes to the ESA will become moot. Legal challenges can be effective, as the Center for Biological Diversity’s recent legal victory shows. Electoral outcomes in the coming years can also spur change. “We need to invest substantially more in protecting more lands and in helping address this extinction crisis,” Greenwald says. “The alarm bells are ringing, and we need to rise to the challenge.”

The God Squad’s actions

Due to an amendment in 1978, the ESA contains a statutory exemption process: The God Squad committee can meet to authorize exemptions from ESA requirements even if doing so would jeopardize the survival and recovery of an endangered or threatened species. Prior to this spring, the officially named Endangered Species Committee—which includes seven Cabinet members—had only convened three times in the past 48 years.

Then, on March 31, the administration’s God Squad—which included Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth—met and voted to allow offshore drilling in the Gulf of America,  despite ESA-related concerns for protected species there, including the endangered Rice’s whale and the tiny Kemp’s ridley sea turtle. The group based its logic on national security interests related to the war with Iran but also predating it. “Recent hostile action by the Iranian terror regime highlights yet again why robust domestic oil production is a national security imperative,” Hegseth said at the meeting.

Conservationists say the God Squad’s recent decision goes against the original intention of the committee. Greenwald points out that “the ESA mandates an intensive process open to the public similar to a trial, so yes, it is supposed to play out over weeks to months.” (The Center for Biological Diversity filed suit against the secretary of the interior in March, in response to the announcement that the committee would meet to discuss the oil and gas exemption in the Gulf.)

This decision in favor of oil and gas industry interests could open the door to more God Squad moves to circumvent protections for endangered species off the coast of California or Alaska, areas where offshore oil drilling has the potential to expand its reach, Davenport, of Defenders of Wildlife, says.

“There is nothing preventing [the God Squad] from having a meeting every week and saying, ‘Oh, here’s a new exemption, oh, here’s a new exemption’ and rendering the [ESA] statute just a mockery,” she adds.

While the God Squad decisions cannot be undone by government administrations, there are other recourses for those who oppose its rulings. Three different lawsuits are pending in the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, brought by conservation groups and nonprofits challenging the legality of the God Squad’s Gulf of America determination. It would also be possible for Congress to overturn the decision, Davenport says, since Congress has the authority to make and amend laws, whether in the near or distant future. Although the ESA is experiencing a series of unprecedented and multipronged attempts to modify it, Davenport looks to a silver lining: greater public awareness. While “this is not the mechanism I would have chosen to get to that moment of public awareness,” she says, “people don’t want to see endangered species go extinct.”