Wildlife advocates are fearful the Trump administration's plans to roll back protections in the Endangered Species Act will hinder efforts to save iconic state animals such as the Florida panther and manatee.
The four proposed rule changes, announced in November by the Department of Interior, would allow economic factors to be used to consider which species should be protected. And it would eliminate "blanket rule" endangered protections to species listed as threatened.
The proposals essentially revive regulations from Trump's first term that were blocked under the Biden administration.
However, environment advocates have said the changes to the landmark 1973 law will lead to critical impacts on the most vulnerable animals, plants and habitats.
Jane Davenport, an attorney with Defenders of Wildlife, said one particularly harmful revision would eliminate the definition of "harm," which prohibits any killing or injuring of species at risk of extinction. That extends to excluding the destruction of their habitats.
"That will have just unbelievable and destructive effects. And it's entirely counter to what Congress intended in the (law) to preserve habitats, because you cannot recover species unless you recover their habitats," she said.
"For better or for worse, the Florida manatee is one of the poster children for how this suite of proposals is going to land on endangered and threatened species."Jane Davenport
For instance, the rules could prohibit looking at how building new roads could imperil the Florida panther or how new septic tanks could pollute the food sources for manatees.
"For better or for worse, the Florida manatee is one of the poster children for how this suite of proposals is going to land on endangered and threatened species," she said.
She said this kind of allowing for a piecemeal destruction of habitat could have devastating consequences.
"There's not going to be one project that is the death knell for the species," she said. "This is not like you build the road, they're all going to die. It's like you build this road and this road and this road, and it's the death by 1,000 cuts.
"And so the ESA is intended to prevent the death by 1,000 cuts by taking that holistic view. And instead of that holistic view, we're going to get a very narrow blindered view that allows those effects of induced development from those roads on the panther to go unanalyzed and unaddressed," said Davenport, whose nonprofit works to protect imperiled species and their habitats.
Davenport said there is some support for tweaking the act.
"But what we don't want you to do is to take a sledgehammer to it for the benefit of industry," she said, "whether it's big oil, big gas, big mining, big timber, big grazing, the industries that don't want to see species protections."
She added that the rules would not take into consideration how new developments and roads would place Florida panthers in more danger. And manatees couldn't be protected by looking at the entire ecosystem that sustains them.
"This administration is restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent, protecting species through clear, consistent and lawful standards that also respect the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources."Interior Secretary Doug Burgum
Trump administration officials defended the proposals as common sense. Industry groups have complained for years that environmental laws have become too restrictive for major energy, mining and development projects.
"This administration is restoring the Endangered Species Act to its original intent, protecting species through clear, consistent and lawful standards that also respect the livelihoods of Americans who depend on our land and resources," Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement.
Here's some of the language in the proposed changes:
Listing and critical habitat (50 CFR part 424): The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sevice and National Marine Fisheries Service jointly propose to restore the 2019 regulatory text governing listing, delisting and critical habitat determinations. The proposal ensures decisions are based on the best scientific and commercial data available while allowing transparent consideration of economic impacts. It reestablishes the longstanding two-step process for designating unoccupied habitat, restores clarity to the definition of "foreseeable future" and reinstates flexibility to determine when designating critical habitat is not prudent.
- This would give wildlife agencies more leeway to weigh costs and practicality when deciding which species get protected and which lands are officially set aside for them.
Interagency cooperation (50 CFR part 402): The services jointly propose to return to the 2019 consultation framework by reinstating definitions of "effects of the action" and "environmental baseline," removing the 2024 "offset" provisions and restoring Section 7 procedures consistent with the statutory text. These changes respond directly to the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron deference standard and reaffirmed that agencies must adhere strictly to the law as written.
- This rolls back consultation rules so federal agencies stick closely to what the law literally says, limiting how much extra interpretation regulators can add when projects might harm species.
Threatened species protections (50 CFR part 17; section 4(d)): The Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to eliminate the "blanket rule" option and require species-specific 4(d) rules tailored to each threatened species. This approach reflects the single best reading of the statute under Loper Bright and ensures that protections are necessary and advisable to conserve each species without imposing unnecessary restrictions on others. It also aligns service policy with the National Marine Fisheries Service's longstanding species-specific approach.
- Instead of automatically applying the same protections to all threatened species, agencies would have to write custom rules for each one.
Critical habitat exclusions (50 CFR part 17; section 4(b)(2)): The Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to reinstate its 2020 rule clarifying how economic, national security and other relevant impacts are weighed when determining whether to exclude areas from critical habitat. The revised framework provides transparency and predictability for landowners and project proponents while maintaining the service's authority to ensure that exclusions will not result in species extinction.
- This makes it easier to exclude land from protected habitat if the economic, security or other impacts are high — as long as the species won't go extinct.
A 30-day public comment period ended this past week. The Fish and Wildlife Service must now review and respond to those comments before finalizing any changes through the federal rule-making process.
Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.
Copyright 2025 WUSF 89.7
