A recent social media post from Earthjustice highlights the organization’s concerns regarding a proposal by the Trump administration to revise how the Endangered Species Act (ESA) defines “harm.”
According to the visual statement released by Earthjustice, the proposed revision would alter the interpretation of harm by excluding habitat destruction from the definition. The group says such a change could impact how protections are enforced for threatened and endangered wildlife.
The post suggests that removing habitat destruction from the harm definition could allow an increase in industrial activities in areas crucial to vulnerable species. Earthjustice argues that damage to a species’ habitat directly affects its survival and should remain included under ESA protections.
The graphic features examples of species commonly associated with ESA safeguards, such as the manatee, grizzly bear, and northern spotted owl, illustrating the importance of habitat in species conservation.
Also Read: Trump Administration Moves to Weaken Endangered Species Act, Advocates Sound the Alarm
The proposal referenced in the post reflects an ongoing debate regarding federal wildlife protection standards and how regulatory definitions influence conservation decisions. The administration’s broader proposal has not been detailed further within the graphic itself.
Earthjustice continues to use its public platforms to bring attention to environmental regulatory issues and proposed federal policy changes.
