On July 10, 2026, the federal Department of the Interior finalized a proposed rule to constrict the definition of “harm” included in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Maine Audubon is deeply concerned about this new rule, and had previously submitted comments denouncing the proposed change. As a reminder, the federal ESA to date has been one of the most successful environmental laws in the nation, with 99% of all listed species still with us as a result of dedicated protections and conservation actions. Some species, such as the Bald Eagle, have recovered and been successfully removed from the list.
Why is Maine Audubon concerned?
Under the new definition, only actions “directed immediately and intentionally against a particular animal” count as “harm” under the ESA. The Trump Administration’s action reverses federal agency policy dating back to 1973 and contradicts a 1995 Supreme Court ruling that indirect actions, such as the destruction of endangered species habitat, also count as “harm.”
Americans are still working to understand the impacts of this action, though it’s widely seen as a devastating blow to the protection of threatened and endangered wildlife. Habitat loss and degradation are major threats to listed wildlife, and this change will make it significantly more difficult to protect the habitats that species need to recover. The change is already being challenged in federal court, and we may not know how impacts will play out until the cases are concluded.
How Does Changing the Definition of “Harm” Weaken Protections for Endangered Species?
It’s important to first understand how the Endangered Species Act works. Once a species is determined to deserve protection, the Act prohibits the “take” of that species. The official definition of “take” included in the Act covers a wide variety of actions, including harming, harassing, hunting, shooting, or collecting listed species. The definition of take specifies that even attempting to engage in those activities is forbidden.
But the word “harm” inside the ESA’s definition of “take” has been controversial. What, exactly, does it mean to “harm” an endangered species? Opponents of the Act want “harm” to mean something very narrow and direct, such as causing immediate injury to a species. Proponents of the Act understand that species are harmed by less-direct actions, including impacting the habitat that a species needs to survive. This latter, broader definition of “harm” is the definition that has been followed by the Federal Government since the Act’s passage in 1973.
The Trump Administration has finalized a much narrower version of “harm” than previously understood. Under the new definition, habitat modification that doesn’t directly injure a species does not violate the ESA.
What Does it Mean Now to “Harm” an Endangered Species?
We don’t really know yet. The Interior Department declined to provide a new definition for the word “harm” as used in the ESA, instead telling federal agencies to rely “on the plain text of the statute going forward.” Court cases, now pending, will likely shed more light onto what “harm” now means in the context of habitat modification.
Are Piping Plovers At Risk?
Piping Plovers, which are listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act, nest and raise their young on Maine beaches every spring and summer, and have been a conservation priority for Maine Audubon since 1981. Some of the threats to Piping Plovers are direct, such as a vehicle on the beach running over a chick, and those threats are still prohibited under the ESA. But other threats are impacts to Piping Plover habitat, such as ripping up dune grass, raking beaches without adequate spotting for nests, and beach alteration. These habitat impacts may not cause immediate harm to Piping Plovers—the birds may not even be in Maine when the actions occur—but they undoubtedly cause harm to the plovers by destroying areas they need to nest and raise their young. However, under the new definition, it does appear that the Trump Administration interpretation of “harm” would make it less likely that the ESA would protect plovers from destructive human activities.
Fortunately, other protections remain in place. Piping Plovers are still protected under the Maine Endangered Species Act, which complements the federal ESA and remains in force, along with state rules governing activities in coastal sand dunes. Additionally, towns along the Maine coast have their own rules regarding development and human activity in the habitats occupied by Piping Plovers. However, federal laws have been an important backstop for the most egregious threats to plovers and violations of the ESA, and losing that support and experience puts more pressure on the State of Maine to step up. Weakening the definition of “harm” also reduces incentives for people to take proactive steps to ensure they protect a species before something bad really happens.
Are Other Maine Endangered and Threatened Species at Risk?
Yes. There are many such potential examples of habitat modification that could harm endangered species in Maine. Damming a river destroys habitat for Atlantic Salmon even if it doesn’t kill the fish directly. Altering forest habitat can degrade nesting, denning, or feeding features for Canada Lynx or Northern Long-eared Bat. The ESA as originally written understood that a species cannot survive without its habitat.
We will work to understand the potential threats to Maine’s federally endangered and threatened species—and the remaining laws that protect them—on a case-by-case basis. Each federally endangered and threatened species living in Maine has its own habitat needs, and activities in those habitats are governed by different sets of rules. We will be vigilant in our duty to understand any new activities that may now be proposed in endangered species habitat. Learn more here and here about which federally threatened and endangered species live in Maine.
What Happens Now?
Maine Audubon is working with coalitions of national partners to understand the impacts of the Trump Administration’s action and how we can best protect endangered species moving forward. We will carefully follow along as legal challenges to this decision work through the federal court system. Finally, we will communicate with our federal delegation about the potential impacts of this decision and potential ways to increase protections for wildlife in Maine. Please make sure that you are signed up for our Advocacy Alerts so that you can stay in the loop on additional developments with the Endangered Species Act.
