On April 16, the Trump administration, in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, proceeded with a proposal to redefine critical terminology in the Endangered Species Act—a motion that experts believe could have catastrophic implications on conservation efforts nationwide.
The proposal aims to modify the current functioning legal definition of harm within the Endangered Species Act. In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that a more literal interpretation of take and harm would better serve the intended interpretation and practice of the Endangered Species Act. In response, conservation experts warn against the extensive repercussions that narrowing these definitions will have on national conservation efforts.
“The Endangered Species Act prohibits ‘take’ of all endangered species, and ‘take’ is broadly defined in the statute to include hunting, pursuing, injuring, and also harm…harm was defined to include habitat destruction,” said Endangered Species Director for the Center for Biological Diversity Noah Greenwald in an interview with the Harvard Independent.
Passed in 1973, the Endangered Species Act was a substantial milestone for national climate activism that came subsequent to the establishment of prior environmental legislation. Congress passed this legislation in part due to increasing concerns regarding the environmental crisis and species extinction that prompted climate activism and an increased public support for conservation measures at the turn of the 20th century.
Greenwald emphasized the importance of the current legal definition and interpretation of harm within the scope of this act. “It’s really the one place in the statute that really prohibits destruction of habitat for listed species, and this definition was further refined under the Reagan administration to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in actual injury or death,” he said.
The current definition of harm provides essential protections for endangered plant and wildlife species and has been substantial in preventing further habitat loss. Changes to the interpretation of the terminology will drastically alter the ways the act can be implemented. “It’s a substantial narrowing of the prohibition on take under the Endangered Species Act that would open up old growth forests used by the spotted owl to be logged. It would open up areas in South Florida that are needed by the Florida panther to be developed. So it really is the worst attack on the Endangered Species Act in its history,” Greenwald said.
Following standard procedure, a 30-day comment period on the proposed rule is currently in effect, in which public opinions will be accepted before the action is decided. “People should definitely comment in opposition to this,” Greenwald said.
However, he has strong reservations about the efficacy of public comment. “I’m sure they will finalize this. They won’t listen to the—I’m sure—tens and tens of thousands of people are going to comment in opposition to this, and I’m sure they won’t listen to that.”
The Center for Biological Diversity, a leading nonprofit organization in the protection of endangered species, plans to take legal action against the Trump administration upon the approval of the action to redefine harm in the Endangered Species Act. “Just to be real about it, we will certainly challenge this in court,” Greenwald said.
Current environmental concerns are not limited to the scope of this recent order. In his inaugural address, Trump said “drill baby drill,” reflecting his efforts to expand America’s natural gas industry. Since then, Trump has issued an immediate expansion of the timber industry and has opened a protected marine zone that is populated by endangered species for commercial fishing off the coast of Hawaii.
“The Trump administration is systematically and rapidly working to undo all of the safeguards for our water, for our air, for our land, for wildlife, for our climate, and really it’s just a stunning example of short-term greed,” Greenwald said. “We’re currently facing two existential crises—climate change and the extinction crisis—and both of these things need immediate attention. And we’re basically seeing the Trump administration go exactly the wrong direction, and it’s really going to have severe consequences for future generations.”
In addition to their environmental implications, these legislative actions pose substantial concern to those entering conservation and related fields.
“My passion for wildlife conservation has shaped my research and fieldwork, as I currently focus on carnivore ecology in African systems,” said Summer Smentek ’25, an integrative biology concentrator.
During her time at Harvard, Smentek has traveled to Africa numerous times and has studied abroad in Tanzania. She has participated in a conservation-focused National Geographic scholarship as well as volunteer work in Namibia, where she contributed to research on human-lion conflict and coexistence in Kenya through her affiliation with the Davies Lab, where she is completing her senior thesis.
“When the legal framework for conservation is weakened, it becomes much harder to secure funding for research and advocate for endangered species,” Smentek said. “Jobs in this field are already under threat; we’re currently seeing dramatic cuts to government funding for conservation research, and important agencies like U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the National Park Service have recently had mass layoffs. I personally know people who have lost their jobs because of these cuts, and as I graduate this year, I also fear what my immediate career prospects will look like in the near future.”
Smentek added that the scarcity of job opportunities within the field could have a substantial impact on conservation efforts globally. “As these job opportunities disappear, I believe we may also see a mass exodus of highly trained professionals to places where these skills and expertise are still valued, or many may choose to leave the field altogether,” she said.
“This would just further undermine our ability to protect ecosystems here in the U.S., and at a time where it is needed more than ever.”
Smentek underlined the importance of advocacy and taking an active role in climate conservation. “If you can’t donate money, donate time: by volunteering, raising awareness, and especially contacting your elected officials.”
As the proposed change to the definition of harm in the Endangered Species Act hangs in the balance, those in the field of conservation urge the public to submit feedback on the rule, continue to advocate for climate justice, and implicate sustainable living practices regardless of the outcome.
Megan Legault ’28 (mlegault@college.harvard.edu) would like to utilize her byline to provide the link for public comment on this proposed rule: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0034-0001.