3 iconic animals show the value of the US Endangered Species Act

It used to be considered against the law in America to starve a member of an endangered species to death or harm it by destroying its home. That’s changing as the federal government chips away at the U. S. Endangered Species Act. Under the Trump administration’s new interpretations of the law, as long as the animal isn’t directly targeted, there is no violation. The new interpretations, if they hold up to court challenges, could leave a vast number of endangered species at higher risk. Many of the country’s shipping, logging, mining and development practices are influenced by the Endangered Species Act’s protections. In some cases, entire species could face extinction if their habitats are no longer protected. As an environmental conservation scientist, I have been following these and other changes affecting endangered species. To understand what they mean, let’s take a look at the potential impact on three very different species that are at risk: the Florida panther, the North Atlantic right whale and the monarch butterfly. On Sept. 14, 2026, a Trump administration rule change went into effect that redefines harm under the Endangered Species Act to mean only directly injuring or killing a member of an endangered species. The new definition removes an interpretation that had been used for half a century, and upheld by the Supreme Court, that harming an endangered species includes eliminating that species’ habitat. That move alone could gut the law’s ability to protect many species that face their biggest threat from losing habitat they rely on. But that isn’t all. The director of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrote a memo to the services’ leadership team dated Sept. 14, 2026, further reinterpreting the law by arguing that it applies only to intentionally injuring or killing an endangered species.