Want more news about agriculture and the environment? Sign up for the Harvest newsletter for our latest reporting, plus behind-the-scenes exclusives.
The low, booming call of the Attwater’s Prairie Chicken could once be heard for miles along the coastal tallgrass prairie that stretched from Texas to Louisiana.
Nowadays, the bird is a rare sight. Its population was about 1 million in the 1900s, but federal officials estimate that only about 200 are left – and less than 1% of the prairie it relies on remains. That population decline has put the prairie chicken on the U.S. Endangered Species List.
“When a species gets to the point that it is endangered and there are only a few hundred or a few thousand left — that's the equivalent of the intensive care unit in the emergency room,” said Dan Reinking, a senior biologist at the George Miksch Sutton Aviation Center in Oklahoma.
The center is working to restore prairie chicken populations through a breeding program. But Reinking said it’s more effective and less costly to prevent species decline in the first place. He said habitat and legal protections for endangered species is an important part of that.
For nearly 50 years, the federal government has defined what it means to “harm” plants and animals under the Endangered Species Act the same way: “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife,” and includes “significant habitat modification or degradation.” The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this interpretation in a 1995 decision.
But the Trump administration recently rescinded this definition of harm to exclude habitat protections. It also changed what it means to “take” an animal to only direct, intentional acts to kill or injure an endangered species.
Administration officials said in a press release that the definition was unlawful and interfered with private property rights. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said federal agencies abused the law to curb land use, and this action “restores common sense.”
“That approach turned routine activity into a regulatory trap, drove up costs that impacted people’s lives, and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended,” Burgum said in the release.
But Reinking and others working to conserve endangered animals and plants say the changes will make it easier for industries to damage remaining habitat – and the species that live there.
“Attempted policy directives for the dissolution of endangered species from their habitat needs and from legal protections could lead to a conservation crisis for many of our wildlife species, not just the ones that are currently endangered,” Reinking said.
Fight to keep protections
Certain tribal nations, conservation groups and state attorneys general from 21 states, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, are suing the administration over the decision in different cases.
The Center for Biological Diversity is one of those organizations. The group says the definition change is illegal and contradicts scientific and legal understanding of the importance of habitats.
Aside from providing places for species to live, Noah Greenwald, the center’s endangered species co-director, said natural spaces generate economic activity and benefit people. He said there is an extinction crisis, and natural spaces must be protected for future generations.
“We're just as dependent on the web of life as these plants and animals that are disappearing are,” Greenwald said.
As part of the lawsuit, his organization is also challenging the administration’s shift to only intentional harm of an endangered species.
“That's just an incredibly limited view of prohibited actions that cause harm and is really inconsistent with the statute, and will just cut out the heart of how we've been protecting species for the last 50 years,” Greenwald said. “This is just really the worst attack on the Endangered Species Act we've seen ever, and so we're in court.”
Protecting species from going extinct and having a healthy ecosystem transcends politics, said Christine Edwards, a conservation geneticist with the Missouri Botanical Garden, which is not part of the litigation. She often works with private landowners to help conserve listed plant species, such as Mead’s milkweed.
The perennial once dotted tallgrass prairies but is now a threatened species in the U.S.
“The sole reason why the species is threatened is because the tallgrass prairie has experienced 98% of habitat loss,” Edwards said. “The habitat is gone. It's been made into cornfields.”
For plants, she said listing species brings more attention and attracts more funding for their recovery. Edwards said many endangered or threatened plants are indicator species, or organisms reflecting the health of ecosystems.
Uncharted territory
To narrow the understanding of the Endangered Species Act, the Trump administration is leaning on an argument made by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a 1995 decision.
Scalia wrote that harm should be understood as only direct, intentional actions against the species, like trapping or killing.
Brigit Rollins, staff attorney at the National Agricultural Law Center, said citing a dissent – something brought before the court and the majority rejected – is unusual.
“I think that is something that is notable about this particular ‘harm’ rescission rule is that the Fish and Wildlife Service is specifically citing a dissent from a Supreme Court decision and saying, ‘We think that this is actually now the best interpretation of the law,’” Rollins said.
While the litigation is focused on the Endangered Species Act, Rollins said it could ultimately affect what whole agencies can do.
The federal agencies’ decision to rescind the “harm” definition was prompted by a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that overturned a longstanding precedent of who interprets laws, according to the National Agricultural Law Center.
The precedent, known as Chevron deference, had lower courts defer to federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws passed by Congress.
By overturning the precedent, the high court ruled there is instead a best meaning of the law, and it is up to the court to determine it, the National Agriculture Law Center explains.
For people whose work interacts with the Endangered Species Act, Rollins said having clarity on the law is important. The harm rule has been around for decades, so even a small change is a disruption, she added.
“When you have regulations that change a lot, it can change how you are running your business, how you are running your operation, and there is something to be said for knowing what you're doing and knowing how the government is going to be regulating you,” Rollins said.
This story was produced in partnership with Harvest Public Media, a collaboration of public media newsrooms in the Midwest and Great Plains. It reports on food systems, agriculture and rural issues.
