Democrats raise alarm over proposed Endangered Species Act definition change
Senate Democrats are raising the alarm over the proposed change to the definition of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
A group, including Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff (Calif.), Cory Booker (N.J.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) wrote a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to express concern over the Trump administration’s proposed rule that would loosen federal protections for endangered species.
A draft rule from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) repeals the current definition of “harm” that is prohibited under the ESA.
Currently, agencies interpret harm to include damage to species’ habitat, but the Trump administration is trying to change that aspect of the rule. It would loosen restrictions on industrial activities that could damage an endangered animal’s habitat, even if the animal itself is not harmed.
In their letter, the Democrats argue that the administration’s reading of the statute presents an “end run around” of the ESA and “completely negates” Congress’s intent when it passed the act in 1973 to protect endangered species from going extinct.
The lawmakers note that it’s been stated previously that loss of habitat is the primary driver of species extinction. They argue that it’s “puzzling” why agencies under the Trump administration will allow habitats to be degraded.
The Democrats also question how the ESA will be enforced and implemented at all, particularly after the FWS and NOAA have undergone significant staffing changes under the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency’s federal workforce cuts.
They are requesting the answers to several questions, including which external stakeholders proposed the new rule, what analysis do the agencies have to back up the rule, and more.
“Protecting wildlife should not be a partisan issue, and wildlife and the habitats they depend on generate innumerable benefits for humanity, including providing stability for our food systems and clean air and water,” the Democrats concluded. “It is important that the administration not lose sight of Congress’s intent when it passed the Act.”
When reached for comment, the Interior Department said it does not comment on congressional correspondence through the media, but it "takes all correspondence from Congress seriously and carefully reviews each matter."
"Should there be any updates on this topic, we will provide further information at the appropriate time," a spokesperson told The Hill.