CaliToday (22/11/2025): The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have announced a comprehensive overhaul of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations. These four proposed rules aim to revert the ESA's legal framework to the standards previously implemented during the Trump administration's 2019–2020 term. This move directly reverses the revisions made by the Biden administration in 2024 amendments that critics argued unwisely expanded federal authority, created legal ambiguity, and strayed from the original statute’s text.
Restoring Clarity and Constitutional Integrity
Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum asserted that the new rules return the ESA to its original intent: protecting endangered species through clear, consistent, and constitutional standards while respecting the livelihoods of American citizens—especially those communities reliant on land and natural resources.
Burgum stated that these revisions "end years of legal confusion and regulatory overreach, providing certainty for states, tribes, landowners, and businesses, while ensuring that conservation efforts are science-based and common-sense."
Brian Nesvik, Director of the USFWS, emphasized that the proposals promote a science-driven conservation model without unduly hindering energy, agriculture, or infrastructure development. He stressed that restoring clarity and predictability offers greater assurance to regulated communities, ensuring the ESA focuses on species recovery outcomes, rather than simply compounding bureaucratic paperwork.
The Four Pillars of Regulatory Reform
The four key proposed regulations address critical aspects of the ESA's implementation:
Listing Determinations: Revising how decisions are made to add a species to the endangered or threatened list, ensuring strict adherence to the "best scientific and commercial data available."
Critical Habitat Designation: Defining the process for identifying "critical habitat," particularly clarifying the criteria for determining what areas are essential for conservation.
Interagency Consultation: Streamlining the mechanism for federal agencies to consult with USFWS/NMFS, aiming to make the process more efficient and less burdensome on federal projects.
Threatened Species Protections (The 4(d) Rule): Restoring the requirement for species-specific protective rules for threatened species, ending the automatic application of the stricter rules reserved for endangered species (the “blanket 4(d) rule” eliminated under Trump's earlier term and revived under Biden). This proposal also solidifies the process for excluding areas from critical habitat designation based on economic impacts or other practical considerations.
Supreme Court and Economic Reality
These proposed changes are seen as directly reflecting a landmark 2024 Supreme Court ruling which curtailed the long-standing judicial deference (the Chevron doctrine) to federal agencies' ambiguous interpretations. This ruling effectively mandates that the ESA must be applied according to the original statutory language, rather than an agency’s fluctuating political perspective.
Furthermore, the rules enforce executive orders aimed at removing regulatory hurdles that obstruct resource development and economic growth, while still maintaining core conservation commitments.
Not surprisingly, Earthjustice, a prominent environmental advocacy group that frequently opposes the Trump administration, harshly criticized the proposal, calling it a "callous attempt to strip endangered animals of their habitat." The group contends that the ESA has "saved 99% of species ever listed," and accuses the administration of prioritizing industrial profits over conservation science. They previously cited over 150,000 public comments opposing similar changes during the 2025 comment period.
The new regulations will be published in the Federal Register and open for public comment—the next crucial step in finalizing a pragmatic, science-respecting, and legally sound ESA framework under President Trump, contrasting sharply with the prior administration’s more ideological approach.