In the last two weeks, the Trump administration has pushed through three new federal rules that gut the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These changes repeal the ESA’s definition of “harm,” strip protections from threatened species, and hand more power to oil, gas, and mining companies to decide what counts as critical habitat. The administration says these changes are needed to improve regulatory clarity, reduce burdens on businesses, and support economic development, citing a recent Supreme Court decision. Supporters say that updating the ESA will make it more efficient and less prone to unnecessary litigation, and claim it won’t threaten the survival of imperiled species. Let’s be clear: this change puts private profits ahead of public good.
Repealing this definition is the latest giveaway to oil, gas, and mining companies, industries that have already done enough damage to threatened and endangered species. This move isn’t just reckless, it’s a blatant example of putting corporate profits over the health of our lands and waters.
Before these changes, the ESA made it simple: if you destroyed a species’ habitat so badly that it killed or injured wildlife by stopping them from breeding, feeding, or finding shelter, that was harm. It’s common sense. If you or I couldn’t find food or a safe place to sleep, we’d be harmed the same as any other animal.
The ESA’s real power comes from protecting the places animals need to survive. It still bans direct harm, but the biggest threats to wildlife are loss of food, shrinking habitat, and pollution, all forms of habitat destruction. The World Health Organization even says a healthy environment could prevent nearly a quarter of all disease. A healthy habitat supports healthy species, that’s true for people and wildlife alike.
When the government proposed these new changes in April, hundreds of thousands of people spoke out against them. A 2025 study found that over 84% of Americans support the ESA, which has prevented 99% of protected species from extinction. Indigenous Peoples, scientists, legal experts, and everyday Americans all agree: protecting habitat is the foundation of species survival.
It makes no sense to tear down a law that works. In 2006, Inletkeeper joined forces to petition ESA protections for Cook Inlet beluga whales. Over 150,000 people backed that call. Thanks to the ESA, 3,013 square miles of Cook Inlet are now protected as beluga habitat. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the whales are still struggling because of industrial discharge, lack of food, and marine traffic noise- in other words, habitat destruction.
These ESA rollbacks are just one piece of a much bigger deregulatory push to let corporations call the shots in tandem with corporate interests. The fossil fuel industry poured at least $450 million into the last election, and the payback was swift. The administration told NOAA to rush deep-sea mining permits, and Secretary Doug Burgum opened up every inch of Alaska’s offshore waters, even the High Arctic, to federal offshore oil and gas leasing. The ESA is one of the last lines of defense standing between unchecked destruction of endangered species and their habitat for corporate profit.
Let’s be honest: gutting the ESA is a gift to big business. Secretary Bergum himself called the previous regulations a “burden on American businesses.” When oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico got a free pass, he said, “Energy streams in the Gulf of America must not be disrupted or held hostage by ongoing litigation.”
The world’s biggest oil and gas companies raked in over $30 million an hour in extra profits during the first half of 2026. With profits like that, it’s no wonder they’re hungry for even fewer rules. Given the profitability of oil and gas extraction, and the dependable demand for fossil fuel products, further deregulation is a clear dinner bell for extractive industries. Secretary Bergum’s assertion that blunting the ESA protects hard-working families suffering from “governmental overreach” is clear fiction. This is about protecting corporate profits, not people.
Scrapping the definition of harm and gutting the ESA is a blatant handout to industries that care more about short-term profits than the survival of countless species or the health of our ecosystems.
Letting big business protect critical ecosystems is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Regulators would be wise to remember what’s been clear for generations: Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and stewardship are the best ways to keep ecosystems healthy and resilient.
An exhaustive 2021 NOAA study uses salmon to illustrate the point: “[Indigenous] communities could have easily decimated salmon populations. But they did not do that. They effectively stewarded salmon across Alaska for millennia. It is a testament to the ongoing prevalence of institutionalized racism and Eurocentrism that this stewardship and depth of knowledge are rarely acknowledged, or drawn upon, in western science and management processes in Alaska today.”
To truly protect our environment, policymakers should follow Indigenous leadership, require their approval in habitat management decisions, and integrate traditional ecological knowledge into recovery plans for endangered species. Indigenous fire management, seasonal harvest practices, and place-based monitoring could all be adopted in drafting guidelines for habitat restoration and species protection. Prioritizing Indigenous voices in drafting and enforcing policies, establishing co-management boards, and funding Indigenous-led conservation initiatives would ensure that land and water management draws on thousands of years of proven stewardship.
We are just as connected to our environment as beluga whales are. No law or regulation can change that fact. There is no life in a vacuum, habitat destruction is the definition of harm.