On Wednesday, the Trump administration took steps to reduce the scope of the Endangered Species Act, reinstating modifications from the president’s first term that had previously been blocked by a federal court.

The proposed modifications include removing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s “blanket rule,” which automatically safeguards plants and animals once they are deemed endangered. Instead, government agencies will be required to formulate specific regulations for each species, a process that may be time-consuming.

This announcement from the administration follows ongoing pressure from Republican lawmakers and industries such as oil, gas, mining, and agriculture, who have called for reforms to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Critics argue that the law is too broadly applied and hampers economic growth.

Environmental advocates, however, have cautioned that these changes could significantly delay conservation efforts for species like the monarch butterfly, Florida manatee, California spotted owl, and North American wolverine.

Rebecca Riley, managing director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, stated, “They’re attempting to revert to the time when they first weakened the law. We are opposing this, and the Biden administration is working on reversing many of the adverse changes made.”

Scientists and government agencies have indicated that extinction rates are accelerating. Species populations globally are declining due to habitat loss and various pressures. Earlier proposals in President Trump’s second term sought to revise the definition of “harm.” These regulations, grounded in the Endangered Species Act, could allow logging projects on national forests and public lands to bypass species protections.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum commented that the administration aims to restore the original purpose of the Endangered Species Act while also considering “the livelihoods of Americans who rely on our lands and resources.”

“These adjustments eliminate years of legal uncertainty and governmental overreach, thereby providing clarity for states, tribes, landowners, and businesses, and ensuring conservation efforts are based on sound science and common sense,” Burgum stated.

A further proposed change requires authorities to consider potential economic repercussions when identifying critical habitats necessary for a species’ survival, an action that environmental groups claim the 1973 law explicitly prohibits.

This approach could potentially result in species being classified as endangered while allowing ongoing practices that continue to endanger their survival.

Noah Greenwald, co-director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Endangered Species Program, remarked, “What the Trump administration is attempting to do is quantify costs. If you’re aiming to protect the spotted owl, they’re trying to factor in how much that protection would cost. Historically, such costs haven’t influenced decisions regarding critical habitat protections.”

An example involving the Southwest sawfish highlights the possible repercussions of these proposals. The lizard population in Arizona’s Mule Mountains is rapidly declining due to rising temperatures, driving the reptiles towards the highest mountain peaks, pushing them closer to extinction.

A petition filed on Wednesday seeks protection for the lizard and the designation of critical habitat. Advocates believe that an economic impact assessment could hinder timely protections. The primary threat to this spiny dragon population is climate change, which could complicate critical habitat designations further.

“We feel this species should be classified as endangered. Frankly, we are somewhat astonished that this species is not already extinct,” stated John Wiens, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, who co-authored the petition.

Earlier this March, the Department of the Interior faced legal action from the Real Estate Environmental Research Center (PERC) and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation over the comprehensive protection rule. Both organizations claimed the rule was illegal and would hinder states and landowners from facilitating species recovery efforts.

Designating species as “threatened” under the comprehensive rule allows them to automatically receive the same protections as those categorized as “endangered,” which are more stringent. This could lead landowners to become apathetic toward the survival of endangered species, as regulations may remain unchanged even if efforts are made to reclassify endangered species to “threatened” status.

PERC Vice President Jonathan Wood characterized Wednesday’s proposal as a “necessary adjustment” following the Biden administration’s actions.

“This reform acknowledges the illegality of the omnibus rule and re-centers recovery efforts within the Endangered Species Act,” Wood expressed.

During its initial term, the Trump administration also took action on the northern spotted owl and gray wolf.

The decision regarding the spotted owl was reversed in 2021 after it was found that political appointees had utilized flawed scientific data to justify opening millions of acres of forest on the West Coast to logging. Protections for wolves, on the other hand, remained in effect across most of the United States, only to be reinstated by federal courts in 2022.

The Endangered Species Act, established 50 years ago, continues to have widespread support. According to a recent poll, approximately 84% of Americans endorse the protections that the law affords.