AMP Article

Environmental groups sue government to stop a big change to the Endangered Species Act

Published July 15, 2026 · Updated July 15, 2026 · By Susan Davis

A Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Leuconotopicus borealis) hovers momentarily before landing at its nesting cavity, delivering a fresh meal to its hidden chicks deep inside the weathered trunk of a longleaf pine. This species is unique among North American woodpeckers, excavating its cavities in living trees rather than dead ones, a slow process that can take years to complete. The longleaf pine forests of Croatan National Forest provide crucial habitat, but these ecosystems require frequent fire to maintain the open structure that the woodpeckers—and countless other species—depend on. Without fire, these forests become overgrown, choking out suitable nesting sites. Active conservation efforts, including prescribed burns and habitat restoration, are critical to ensuring the future of this iconic bird.

Environmental Groups Sue to Halt ESA 'Harm' Rule Change

Environmental groups sue government to stop a major Trump administration overhaul of the Endangered Species Act. The administration's recent modification of the word "harm" could reshape how wildlife receives protection across the United States. For more than fifty years, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service applied a broad interpretation that included significant habitat modification or degradation. Under this reading, any change affecting a species' ability to find food, reproduce, or shelter counted as harm. Now, the federal government has officially withdrawn that comprehensive definition, prompting immediate legal challenges.

Administration Defends the Policy Shift

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum defended the decision when it was announced on Friday. "This action restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed," Burgum stated. A NOAA Fisheries representative echoed similar sentiments in an emailed statement on Tuesday. "The final rule will restore the definition of 'harm' to its original intent as written under the ESA, and will maintain protections for endangered species while reducing unnecessary or duplicative permitting requirements, cutting compliance costs, and eliminating confusion for Americans," the representative explained.

Coalition Files Federal Lawsuit

Despite the administration's confidence, environmental organizations express serious concerns. They worry that the rule change, which takes effect on September 14, could devastate wild habitats that endangered species rely upon. These groups fear the modification undermines decades of protective measures that have helped sustain vulnerable populations. Shortly after the new rule appeared in the federal register on Tuesday, the law firm Earthjustice joined forces with more than half a dozen environmental organizations. Together, they filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Seattle targeting both the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries, which is also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service.

"The agencies haven't explained themselves adequately," said Kristen Boyles, an attorney representing the coalition. "Making this kind of dramatic change doesn't make any legal sense because it goes against the fundamental purpose and spirit of the statute itself."

Boyles predicts that in the immediate future, numerous individual projects will face court delays. The situation will create uncertainty as the historic definition of harm and the administration's revised interpretation compete for legal precedence. "The one thing that this repeal of this rule is going to certainly do is cause complete confusion in the regulated community," Boyles observed. "And it's going to cause an increase in litigation over each and every project that's proposed that doesn't protect habitat."

Tribal Nations and Industry Weigh In

Indigenous communities are also taking legal action. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community and the Squaxin Island Tribe filed a separate lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the federal government. Their complaint highlights that habitat degradation has been the primary driver behind declining salmon populations in Puget Sound. "Given that, they write in their complaint, 'the loss of long-standing protection for the habitat of ESA-listed salmon species will injure the Tribes and their members.'"

Not everyone opposes the modification. Several industry organizations have publicly endorsed the administration's approach. During public comments made last year when the rule change was first proposed, a group of oil and petroleum companies including the American Petroleum Institute argued that "the proposal to rescind the 'harm' definition is justified many times over." The Associated General Contractors of America similarly expressed approval, stating they "appreciate the administration's efforts to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens." Following Friday's announcement, Holly Hopkins of the American Petroleum Institute commented: "We remain committed to supporting commonsense ESA [Endangered Species Act] policies that both protect wildlife and support American energy leadership."

The Endangered Species Act has been a cornerstone of American environmental policy since President Richard Nixon signed it into law in 1973. The current legal battle over the definition of "harm" could set important precedents for how future administrations interpret and implement conservation protections nationwide.