Twenty States and D.C. Sue Trump Administration Over Endangered Species Act Revisions
Twenty states and Washington D.C. are suing the Trump administration over a revised definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act, which opponents argue permits habitat destruction. The administration contends the change restores the act's original intent and reduces regulatory…
Salt Lake City, UT, September 16, 2026 —
Twenty states and the District of Columbia have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration concerning a revised definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Opponents of the change argue that the revised definition permits habitat destruction, a key element in protecting endangered species.
The lawsuit challenges a policy that alters how the term “harm” is interpreted within the ESA. Environmental advocates and the states involved contend that this redefinition weakens protections for threatened and endangered species by allowing actions that could lead to the destruction of their habitats. This, they argue, is contrary to the act’s purpose of conserving species and their ecosystems.
Conversely, the administration asserts that the revision aims to restore the Endangered Species Act to its original intent. Officials stated that the change is designed to reduce regulatory burdens, which they believe will streamline processes and encourage more effective conservation efforts. The administration’s position is that the revised definition clarifies existing rules and provides greater certainty for landowners and businesses while still upholding conservation goals.
The specific court where the lawsuit was filed was not provided in the summary. Further details regarding the timeline of the revised definition’s implementation and the exact legal arguments put forth by both sides are also not specified. The summary does not include information on the contractor’s name or inspection outcomes, as these details are not relevant to the core subject of the lawsuit.
The core of the legal dispute centers on the interpretation of the word “harm” as it relates to critical habitat designations and the protection of species listed under the ESA. This legal challenge represents a significant pushback from a coalition of states against the administration’s regulatory changes affecting environmental law.
Story summarized from the original created by Leah Bowers on www.deseret.com, see more information here.
