The Trump administration implemented regulatory changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that alter how the federal government defines "harm" to protected species. Under the revised guidelines, the definition of prohibited activity is narrowed, which critics argue provides corporations with greater flexibility to develop land that was previously restricted due to its status as critical habitat for endangered animals.

Proponents of the change, typically represented by industry groups and administration officials, have argued that the previous interpretation of the ESA was overly broad and hindered economic growth. They contend that the update provides necessary clarity for developers and landowners, ensuring that regulations are applied more predictably. Conversely, environmental advocates and organizations like The Nation argue that the move effectively legalizes the destruction of vital ecosystems. They maintain that by narrowing the scope of what constitutes "harm," the government is prioritizing corporate interests over the long-term survival of vulnerable species. While the administration frames the policy as a streamlining of bureaucratic hurdles, opponents characterize it as a significant rollback of environmental protections that have been in place for decades. The core disagreement centers on whether the previous interpretation of the law was an essential safeguard or an unnecessary regulatory burden that stifled economic activity.