The Trump administration is moving to dismantle a central protection of the US Endangered Species Act, a shift that could affect more than 1,600 critically imperiled species. A memo distributed on September 14 to Fish and Wildlife Service field offices by FWS director Brian Nesvik calls for a reinterpretation of what it means to «take» an endangered species.
Under the 1973 law, «take» is defined broadly as «to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct». That definition has long served as the legal backbone of federal wildlife protection, allowing regulators to shield species not only from direct killing but also from activities that destroy habitat or disrupt essential behavior.
The memo does not offer a replacement definition, but its instruction to field offices signals that the agency intends to narrow the scope of what counts as a prohibited take. Such a change would reduce the number of federal actions subject to consultation and could open previously restricted land and water to development, resource extraction, and other activities.
The Endangered Species Act has been credited with preventing the extinction of iconic American wildlife, including the bald eagle, the gray wolf, and the grizzly bear. More than 1,600 species are currently listed as threatened or endangered in the United States, and many depend on the take prohibition to survive. Conservation groups warn that weakening the rule would leave those species exposed to habitat loss, pollution, and other pressures that the law was designed to address.
The reinterpretation is the latest in a series of administrative moves by the Trump administration aimed at reducing regulatory burdens on industry. Officials have argued that the current definition of take is overly broad and imposes unnecessary costs on landowners, energy companies, and infrastructure projects. Supporters of the change say it would provide greater certainty for businesses while still protecting species from direct harm.
Critics counter that the memo bypasses Congress and the public rulemaking process. Because the definition of take is written into the statute, they argue, any significant change should require legislative action rather than an internal agency directive. Legal challenges are expected if the reinterpretation is formally adopted.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has not announced a timeline for implementing the change or detailed how it would apply the new interpretation in practice. Field offices are expected to follow the guidance in the memo when evaluating permits and consultations, but the full impact may not be clear for months.
Scientists and environmental lawyers say the move could have far-reaching consequences for biodiversity in the United States. Habitat destruction is the leading cause of species decline, and without the ability to regulate harmful activities, federal protections would be limited largely to direct killing and capture. That, they warn, would leave many species with little effective safeguard as their populations continue to shrink.
