Press Releases

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published their final rule to rescind the regulatory definition of "harm" in their regulations covering the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Following publication, Members of the Congressional Western Caucus released the following statements.

“This is a long-overdue win for the people who steward our nation’s lands. Farmers, ranchers, and landowners know how to maintain ecological balance while putting our land to its proper use. Conservation cannot succeed by ignoring the people closest to the land," said Chair Celeste Maloy.

“Vague interpretations of the Endangered Species Act have been weaponized by extremists for decades to terrorize private property owners with prohibitively expensive environmental litigation. Returning the law to its true intent to focus on recovery of species rather than a zoning mechanism to shut down development is a step in the right direction,” said Vice Chair Harriet Hageman.

"I commend the Trump Administration for taking decisive action to finally bring the Endangered Species Act in line with Congress' original intent," said Vice Chair Pete Stauber. "For years, the ESA has been improperly expanded beyond its original purpose to block important infrastructure and resource development projects for purely political reasons, all while undermining the species it is meant to protect." 
 
“For too long, unelected bureaucrats have stretched the Endangered Species Act beyond what Congress wrote, turning a law meant to protect wildlife into a backdoor tool for removing access, controlling private property, and shutting down responsible land use. This rule restores common sense by protecting endangered species while respecting the law as written and the expertise of state wildlife managers. We can conserve wildlife without giving Washington unlimited authority to place burdensome regulations restricting Montana’s land and livelihoods,” said Vice Chair Ryan Zinke.

“The Endangered Species Act was intended to protect species from extinction, not serve as an open-ended tool for expanding federal control over private property and land management. Restoring the law to its original intent by changing the definition of “harm” provides greater certainty for landowners, ranchers, and local communities while maintaining protections for endangered species. That is especially important across the West, where overly broad federal interpretations have too often created conflict instead of encouraging practical conservation. In Western and Southern Colorado, this is another step toward ensuring wildlife policy is guided by science, common sense, and collaboration—especially as our state continues managing the challenges surrounding wolf reintroduction,” said Vice Chair Jeff Hurd.

“For too long, the federal government has stretched the Endangered Species Act  far beyond what Congress ever wrote into law. Today's ruling is a monumental win for landowners, farmers, and ranchers who have lived under that overreach for decades. No one should face federal enforcement simply for using their own property, and this decision reflects the Supreme Court's direction in Loper Bright that agencies must operate within the limits Congress actually enacted, rather than expanding statutory authority through regulation. It's also a critical step toward permitting reform, giving landowners, energy producers, and agricultural operators the certainty they need to plan and invest without fear of being swept into liability,” said Congressman August Pfluger.

"Kansans have proven for generations that conservation works best when it is driven by those closest to the land. Farmers, ranchers, and energy producers are some of our nation’s greatest conservation partners, investing millions of dollars and countless hours protecting wildlife habitat while continuing to feed and fuel America. Kansas has shown that responsible stewardship and economic growth can go hand in hand without an overreaching federal mandate. The rescission of the flawed “harm” definition ensures federal regulators follow the law as written. I applaud FWS for taking this important first step to restore common-sense to the ESA,” said Congressman Ron Estes. 
 
“I applaud the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for rescinding this inane and wasteful regulatory rule that has harmed the producers who help feed and fuel America," said Congressman Jim Baird. "Overuse of the Endangered Species Act has given unelected bureaucrats too much control over people’s lives. Lake Freeman in Monticello was once drained because of this regulatory domineering. I am glad the USFWS is giving proper decision-making back to local communities, not Washington.”

“Today’s action is a long-overdue step toward restoring balance and common sense in how we implement the Endangered Species Act. For too long, an overly broad definition of ‘harm’ has created uncertainty for landowners, farmers, and energy producers trying to do the right thing. This rule provides much-needed clarity. I’m proud to see this progress and will continue working to protect both our natural resources and the livelihoods of the American people,” said Congressman Mark Alford.

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's final ruling is a win for common sense. I’m glad the agencies have created clarity for American businesses, conservationists, and outdoor enthusiasts," said Congressman Austin Scott.

“The federal government should never rewrite laws to fit a political agenda. By rescinding the unlawful definition of ‘harm,’ the Trump Administration is restoring the Endangered Species Act to what Congress actually enacted. I applaud this commonsense decision, which protects private property rights, curbs bureaucratic overreach, and puts the rule of law ahead of radical environmental activism,” said Congressman Paul Gosar.

“For too long, unelected bureaucrats and activist courts have stretched the Endangered Species Act's definition of 'harm' far beyond what Congress intended — blocking critical infrastructure projects, killing good-paying jobs, and undermining our energy security. West Virginia knows this firsthand: that expansive interpretation was used to delay projects like the Mountain Valley and Atlantic Coast Pipelines, costing our state jobs, investment, and affordable energy. I applaud the Trump administration for restoring the law's original intent and protecting America's energy future,” said Congressman Riley M. Moore.
 

Policy Digest

The Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce finalized a rule to eliminate the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This change complies with the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which stated that regulators must follow the single best meaning of a statute, rather than interpreting or stretching its meaning for their own purposes.

Within ESA regulation, the definition of “harm” previously prevented any action that may damage the habitat of an ESA listed species, even when it did not directly harm or kill the species itself. Including “harm” under the definition of an illegal “take” (an act that kills or injures wildlife) gave federal bureaucrats oversized reach into the actions of private landowners and developers. By removing “harm” from the definition of “take,” ESA regulation will be rightsized to prevent the illegal killing and injuring of endangered species without stalling development and agricultural production based on theoretical harm to a species.