Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Do Not Weaken the Endangered Species Act

PROPOSED RULE: Rescinding the Definition of Harm under the Endangered Species Act

Regulations.gov Document ID: FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0034-0001

Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

View the terms of participation and privacy notice for Regulations.gov. All comments made on regulations.gov action centers will be public comments, so we encourage action-takers not to include personally identifiable information in their messages.

BACKGROUND

The ongoing loss of biodiversity in the United States is deeply troubling. Populations of bees, butterflies, and other vital pollinators—as well as birds and countless species of wildlife—are rapidly declining. A primary driver of this crisis is industrial agriculture, including the widespread use of pesticides by both GMO and conventional farming operations.

We strongly oppose the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed rule to weaken the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This change would open the door for corporations to prioritize profit over ecological and public health, effectively gutting the protections that the ESA was designed to provide. 

As reported by Civil Eats:

The Trump administration is proposing a significant change to one of the country’s most important—and contentious—environmental laws, which could give farmers more leeway to use pesticides without regard to their impact on critical habitats.

In a proposed rule change announced on March 17, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service want to change the way they interpret the Endangered Species Act, which they collectively administer, by rescinding the definition of “harm.”

Under the proposed rule change, habitat would not be protected, which could have huge consequences. It would open more of the United States to drilling, logging, and other industries. And it would represent a significant development for farmers, ranchers, and other food producers, affecting the ways they use land, make decisions about conservation, and treat crops. That’s especially true of pesticide use.

“Redefining ‘harm’ to not include habitat would really have a lot of impact,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Pesticides are habitat-destroying chemicals. They kill plants. They destroy water quality and soil health. If you’ve ever driven through the rural Midwest, it quickly becomes apparent that the only living things allowed to thrive there are corn and soy and wheat, and that’s brought to you by pesticides. So habitat and pesticides really go hand in hand.”

The move comes just a few years after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally began regulating pesticides’ impacts on endangered species and the habitats that support them—and after 50 years of the agency’s failure to address that responsibility under the ESA.

Submit your comment today. Say NO to the USFWS proposed rule to weaken the definition of “harm” under the ESA.

The comment submission deadline is Monday, May 19 at 11:59PM Eastern Time. Use the pre-written comment as-is, or edit it to make it your own.