Why the Endangered Species Act Is Still Crucial After 50 Years
By Erika Pietrzak, May 16, 2025
According to the Department of the Interior’s website, the ESA has prevented the extinction of hundreds of species and helped American citizens better comprehend the repercussions of their actions on wildlife.
Today, May 16, is Endangered Species Day in the United States. Endangered species protections have been a hot-button issue within the second Trump Administration, which has proposed rollbacks on species conservation research and implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA has been directly responsible for saving 291 species from extinction. But what exactly is the ESA, and why do we still need it more than 50 years after its passing?
History
By the mid-1900s, several important species, including our national bird, the Bald Eagle, experienced significant population declines that fueled the creation of widespread mandates to address this crisis. Informed by research that revealed every species' valuable role in our interwoven ecosystems, politicians strived to pass a comprehensive piece of legislation to protect American wildlife.
As a result of these efforts, the Endangered Species Preservation Act was signed into law in 1966. This Act took the first steps toward listing endangered or threatened species and awarding them protections. Crucially, it allowed for land acquisition as habitat for endangered species. In 1969, the Act was expanded to provide additional protection for species in danger of “worldwide extinction” by prohibiting importation into or trading within America. With this amendment came the call for international action that led to the signing of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) by 80 countries.
The ESA, signed into law in 1973 as a joint effort between the Department of the Interior and Fish and Wildlife Service, “establishes protections for fish, wildlife, and plants that are listed as threatened or endangered; provides for…preparing and implementing plans for their recovery; provides for interagency cooperation to avoid take of listed species and for issuing permits for otherwise prohibited activities; provides for cooperation with States, including authorization of financial assistance,” and more. This Act holds federal agencies responsible so that “actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species.”
According to the Department of the Interior’s website, the ESA has prevented the extinction of hundreds of species and helped American citizens better comprehend the repercussions of their actions on wildlife. It is known as “one of the most significant wildlife conservation laws in the United States.” In its first fifty years, it has been credited with saving 99 percent of the listed species from extinction and has successfully done so in alliance with local, tribal, and state governments. One example of its progress is the boom in the Whooping Crane population from just 21 individuals in 1941 to over 500 individuals today.
Despite its successes, the ESA is running at a minimal capacity. Current funding covers just three percent of the $2.3 billion needed, severely limiting the impact of the important work supported by the ESA. This leaves many species at risk of extinction. The Department of the Interior emphasizes the continued need for the ESA’s Act’s wide-reaching accomplishments as “conservation efforts [that] are essential for stemming the worsening impacts of climate change, protecting biodiversity and preserving our planet for ourselves and future generations.”
Protected gray wolf near Yosemite, California [Source: NPR]
Last Decade of ESA Change
During President Trump’s first term, his administration attempted to dismantle the ESA under the facade that it did not succeed in species conservation, despite overwhelming evidence showing otherwise. The first Trump Administration dropped the blanket protections rule within the Act, which permitted officials to apply pending or existing protections to different species. This key rule allowed existing plans to be repurposed for new species, instead of creating entirely new plans each time, unless specified otherwise. Changing these forces officials to undertake time-intensive planning for every species, despite similarities or existing plans. The first Trump Administration also instated required “federal actions to affect species’ critical habitat ‘as a whole’ before real habitat protections are put in place,” allowing for impactful, but localized habitat degradation. Moreover, he limited the protections of species designated as ‘threatened’ but not ‘endangered.’
Crucially, the Trump Administration also mandated that, for the first time in our nation's history, efforts in conservation under the ESA must first undergo an economic impact assessment, “despite the law’s original language specifying that species must be protected ‘regardless of economic consequence.’” The first Trump Administration made thirty-one harmful changes in 2019 to the ESA, which you can read about in more detail here.
Grizzly bears are among the animals likely to lose enhanced governmental protections if Donald Trump weakens the Endangered Species Act as he did during his first presidential term. [Source: Science News]
Although the Biden Administration developed the ESA’s responsibility and ability by many protections that President Trump’s first Administration removed, it fell short of many conservationists’ hopes. President Biden and his administration invested in key areas through, but not limited to, the Inflation Reduction Act and the America the Beautiful Initiative, also reinstating the blanket protections rule. Still, many environmentalists strongly assert that the Biden Administration’s actions to reverse only seven of the thirty-one changes its predecessor made was a “massive missed opportunity.”
Trump vs. ESA
Now, a new Trump Administration works again to destroy and uproot the protections that have long served our nation’s wildlife and environment. Recent Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” listed a number of aspects of the ESA the new administration plans to revise, rescind, or suspend, including the blanket protections rule. Several experts worry of the influence of Project 2025 in the current administration’s attack against the ESA with the report supporting “ending reliance on species specialists — the scientists tasked with collecting and interpreting the data that informs ESA recommendations — due to their ‘obvious self-interest, ideological bias, and land-use agendas.’” Conservationists liken this argument to doctors having biases and choosing a dentist for your heart surgery instead.
In 2020, the ESA’s definition of ‘critical habitat’ was changed to decrease the amount of outdoor spaces that would be categorized under this Act, something legal scholars expect the current administration to continue to manipulate the definition of in favor of industrial expansion. This may authorize birthing grounds, nurseries, or other habitats that are crucial to species, but are not inhabited by them throughout the entire year to be destroyed.
The second Trump Administration is presently working to manipulate the definition of ‘harm’ in the ESA to include only direct actions against the species and not those against their habitat. This would allow logging, mining, and industrialization to take over important terrain. With habitat loss as the “biggest single cause of extinction and endangered species,” this move could be detrimental to species the country has invested decades intosaving and must protect to maintain healthy ecosystems.
Northern spotted owls are one of many species whose habitat was historically protected by the Endangered Species Act. [Source: NPR]
The Future of the ESA
If these changes are successful, the future of many species are in great danger. For example, the Florida panther’s habitat of swamplands is shrinking drastically. The change in definitions will allow for further habitat destruction and likely cause their extinction. It will also raise questions of legal consistency as this new definition of harm is at odds with the 1995 case Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon’s definition of ‘take’ that includes habitat modification. Moreover, the existing definition of ‘harm’ has been in place for decades and has been the ground for protecting millions of acres of land that will now no longer have legal protection. This change could uproot private conservation plans and investments already occurring.
Many organizations are joining together to fight for these irreplaceable ecosystems. A long legal battle is ahead should the Trump Administration go through with the changes, as Earthjustice has already promised to take legal action against the administration. Other nonprofits are working to establish legal precedent through other lawsuits to protect current definitions. Environmental advocates also warn of the future consequences of businesses testing the limits of any new definitions.
The ESA is not just an opportunity for us to help save our environment, but also an opportunity to improve our collaboration between different parts of our country’s and tribal governments. Some scientists are worried about the entire collapse of the ESA by the Trump Administration. The ESA may have to experience “its biggest legal shift in decades.” The gains of the last fifty years may be, as many conservationists warn, reversed during this administration. The ESA’s future relies on public comments, agency decisions, and legal fights ahead.
Want to Take Action?
Submit a Public Comment on the Trump Administration’s Changing Definition of “Harm”.
Stay Up to Date on Public Comments and Public Meetings.
Stay Informed on Regulation Revisions.
Change The Chamber is a nonpartisan coalition of young adults, 100+ student groups across the country, environmental justice and frontline community groups, and other allied organizations.