**Trump Administration Moves to Cut Protections for Endangered Species**
*Published on September 18, 2026*
In a significant policy shift, the Trump administration has issued a directive that could fundamentally alter the protections afforded to endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This new guidance, issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), redefines the term "take," which has historically encompassed a wide range of actions that could harm protected wildlife.
The memo, distributed to FWS field offices earlier this week, proposes that "take" will now refer specifically to "affirmative conduct intentionally directed against a particular animal or animals." This reinterpretation means that unintentional harm caused by economic activities, such as construction or maritime navigation, would no longer be classified as unlawful under the ESA.
Brian Nesvik, the director of the FWS, cited a precedent from former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a 1995 ruling to support this redefinition. The memo states, "A vessel that inadvertently strikes a whale has not taken it, because the vessel's course was not set against the whale." Similarly, it notes that "felling a tree is not a take of the bats roosting in it unless the tree is felled for the purpose of killing or capturing them."
This directive follows a previous rule change that rescinded the definition of "harm" under the ESA, further weakening the legal framework protecting endangered species. The Interior Department has confirmed the authenticity of the memo, stating that it accurately reflects the guidance for implementing the ESA in light of the recent regulatory changes.
Environmental advocates have reacted strongly against this new directive. Brett Hartl, the government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, expressed deep concern, stating that the move "stabs at the very heart of the Endangered Species Act by giving federal approval to the killing of some of America’s most beloved wildlife." Hartl criticized the administration's efforts to dismantle environmental protections, labeling the measure as "both cruel and profoundly unlawful." He emphasized that killing endangered wildlife, whether intentional or not, should remain illegal.
The implications of this policy change could be far-reaching, potentially allowing for increased incidental harm to endangered species as economic development projects proceed without the same level of scrutiny or accountability. Critics argue that this could lead to a decline in populations of already vulnerable species, undermining decades of conservation efforts.
As the administration moves forward with these changes, the response from environmental groups and concerned citizens is expected to intensify, with calls for legal challenges and advocacy for the restoration of stronger protections for endangered wildlife. The ongoing debate highlights the tension between economic interests and environmental conservation, a theme that has been central to discussions surrounding the ESA since its inception in 1973.
The future of endangered species in the United States may hinge on the outcomes of this policy shift and the public's response to the administration's approach to environmental protection.