US states sue Trump over weakening of endangered species protections
Democratic attorneys general from 20 U.S. states and the District of Columbia filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration this week, saying recent changes to Endangered Species Act protections were made illegally. The suits challenge final rules from the Interior and Commerce departments that narrow the law's reach and could reduce habitat safeguards for threatened plants and animals.
Why It Matters
If upheld, the new rules could allow industrial activities in areas that have previously been protected as habitat, weakening safeguards that have helped recover species such as condors, grizzly bears and humpback whales. Critics warn those rollbacks risk undoing decades of conservation progress and could push vulnerable species toward extinction.
Key Facts
- Plaintiffs: Attorneys general from 20 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia
- When: Two lawsuits filed on Wednesday
- Agencies behind the rules: U.S. Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce
- Timing of rules: Final rules announced less than two months before the lawsuits
- Primary legal claim: Government unlawfully narrowed the definition of 'harm' under the 1973 Endangered Species Act
A coalition of Democratic attorneys general representing 20 states and Washington, D.C., sued the Trump administration on Wednesday, arguing that recent regulatory changes illegally weaken the Endangered Species Act. The complaints target a set of final rules issued by the Interior and Commerce departments that the states say strip long-standing protections for wildlife and their habitats.
One suit contends the administration reinterpreted what constitutes 'harm' under the 1973 law, narrowing it so that threats to habitat would no longer qualify unless harm was shown to be directed immediately and intentionally at a particular animal. The states argue this reinterpretation would permit activities such as mining and oil drilling in sensitive habitat areas that previously would have been protected.
A second suit challenges two additional rules: one that removes broad safeguards for species newly listed as threatened unless the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopts species-specific regulations, and another that requires regulators to weigh objections from private companies before designating critical habitat. Together, the states say, those changes leave species with weaker protections than Congress intended when it passed the statute.
Environmental groups have brought parallel legal challenges, and state officials framed the lawsuits as attempts to defend long-standing conservation law and stewardship of land and water. The Trump administration responded that past agency interpretations had gone beyond congressional intent and accused the plaintiffs of defending regulatory overreach. The litigation sets up a legal fight over whether the administration's revisions can stand and what level of protection will apply to at-risk species going forward.
Keep Reading
Guterres pays tribute to Qatar’s late Father Emir at UN ceremony
Trump says Iran war ‘will end immediately’ after US midterm elections
Liverpool come back to beat Atletico Madrid 2-1 in Champions League opener
