US narrows endangered species protections to exclude accidental killings

The Trump administration has instructed federal officials that accidentally harming or killing protected wildlife will no longer be treated as a violation of the law, a major policy shift that significantly narrows the scope of the landmark Endangered Species Act.

The directive, detailed in an internal memo sent to Fish and Wildlife Service field offices, represents a significant victory for industries such as logging, mining, and construction, which have long argued that wildlife protections stifle economic development. Conservationists, however, have warned the decision is unlawful and will accelerate extinctions.

Sent on 14 September by Brian Nesvik, the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the memo reinterprets what it means to "take" an endangered species. Under the 1973 law, "taking" is defined broadly to include harassing, harming, wounding, or killing protected animals. Under the new guidance, these actions are only illegal if they are done on purpose.

To illustrate the new policy, the memo—which was obtained and published by the advocacy group the Center for Biological Diversity—argues that a vessel hitting a whale has not committed an offence because its course was not deliberately set against the mammal. Similarly, felling a tree that contains roosting bats is no longer deemed illegal unless the logger's explicit purpose was to kill or capture them.

The change effectively shields industrial and commercial projects from prosecution when their activities foreseeably, but unintentionally, destroy wildlife. It builds on a previous decision in July, when the administration stripped "significant habitat modification" from the definition of prohibited harm. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum defended that earlier move, arguing that federal agencies had long "abused" the law to obstruct land use and burden businesses.

Legal experts and environmental groups argue the administration is on shaky legal footing. They point to a 1995 US Supreme Court ruling, Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, in which the court rejected the argument that "take" must refer only to deliberate acts against wildlife.

"If you chop down a tree full of endangered birds or race a huge ship through a pod of endangered whales, you should be held accountable for your destructive acts," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. He called the memo a "flagrant and illegal attempt" to bypass Congress.

The environmental law non-profit Earthjustice also promised a courtroom challenge, calling the policy a "prescription for extinction" that allows actors off the hook simply by claiming they did not mean to cause harm. A coalition of 20 states and Washington DC has already sued the administration over its July rule change.

In a statement, the Department of the Interior, which oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, defended the revision. It argued that previous rules had expanded the law beyond what Congress originally enacted, and that the new policy simply restores the correct legal interpretation while maintaining core protections.