{
  "id": 8207579,
  "title": "The fate of the Endangered Species Act rests on 2 simple words",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/18/the-fate-of-the-endangered-species-act-rests-on-2-simple-words",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-09-18T08:15:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Grist",
    "slug": "grist",
    "url": "https://grist.org/language/endangered-species-act-trump-take-harm/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The Endangered Species Act, a cornerstone of conservation efforts in the United States since 1973, has recently come under attack by the Trump administration. The administration has taken legal action to weaken the law and make it easier to kill and harm endangered species. The centerpiece of this attack is the administration's new directive which states that killing an endangered species is legal if it wasn't done on purpose. This, coupled with another recent change that now considers damaging an animal's habitat not as \"harming\" it, significantly diminishes the power of the Endangered Species Act.\n\nThe two key words at the heart of this legal maneuver are \"harm\" and \"take\". \"Take\" refers to killing an animal, while \"harm\" is being redefined to exclude damage to habitat. These changes effectively render the act powerless, paving the way for industries to exploit areas without regard for the wildlife that inhabits them. The fate of the country's most endangered creatures may hinge on the precise meaning of these two words.\n\nLegal experts argue that the administration's interpretation of these terms is unprecedentedly narrow, and likely to be challenged in court. Environmental groups, including Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council, have vowed to fight the administration's changes. The Supreme Court has previously ruled on similar issues, with a 1995 decision that modifying a creature's habitat, such as logging the forest where spotted owls live, counts as harming it. Despite this, the Trump administration's new memo aligns with the interpretation of \"take\" that the majority of the court disagreed with in Babbitt v. Sweet Home.\n\nCritics argue that the administration's changes are not only legally flimsy, but also unethical. They see the administration's actions as an attempt to undermine 50 years of the Endangered Species Act, disregarding the agency's and public's long-standing interpretation of the law. For companies, the administration's new approach may create confusion and uncertainty, forcing them to reconsider their strategies. If the courts ultimately side with the administration, certain species could face a much grimmer future.",
  "summary": "The Trump administration has upended protections for thousands of endangered species by redefining the words \"take\" and \"harm.\"",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}