Trump Administration Proposes Rollback of Endangered Species Act Protections

Thu Nov 20 2025 00:21:19 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

In a significant policy shift, the Trump administration aims to reverse protections for endangered species, raising concerns among environmentalists about the impact on vulnerable species and habitats.

The Trump administration is working to revise the Endangered Species Act, eliminating automatic protections for newly threatened species and putting in place species-specific rules that could delay conservation efforts. This move, criticized by environmental groups, is seen as a favor to industries that argue existing regulations hinder economic growth.

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — The Trump administration announced plans to roll back protections for endangered species on Wednesday, reinstating a set of changes to the Endangered Species Act regulations that had previously been blocked by the Biden administration. One significant alteration is the elimination of automatic protections for newly classified threatened species.

Previously, the Fish and Wildlife Service offered blanket protections for threatened species, but under the new proposal, agencies would need to create specific rules for each species, delaying crucial conservation efforts. Notably, this change could hamstring efforts to protect species like monarch butterflies and manatees, prompting environmentalists to voice strong opposition.

Stephanie Kurose from the Center for Biological Diversity expressed deep concern, stating, We would have to wait until these poor animals are almost extinct before we can start protecting them. That’s absurd and heartbreaking. The urgency is amplified by reports indicating a global acceleration of extinctions linked to habitat loss and other environmental pressures.

The modifications reflect long-standing demands from Republican lawmakers and industry representatives who argue that the existing Endangered Species Act has been overly broad and detrimental to economic progress. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum defended the changes, asserting that the revisions uphold the law's original intent while balancing the needs of land users and resource-dependent industries.

Further revisions would require officials to consider the economic impacts when designating critical habitats essential for species survival. Critics of the current regulations argue that the blanket protections discourage collaborative recovery efforts by states and landowners.

The proposal also comes on the heels of litigation against the previous blanket rule, suggesting a broader agenda to align conservation efforts with the interests of economic growth. As the debate over the balance between protecting wildlife and supporting industry continues, advocates for both sides are poised to react as the implementation unfolds.