A day after the Trump administration announced measures that will significantly weaken the Endangered Species Act (ESA), politicians and activists alike are pushing back.
The decision — announced by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior on Monday — was widely condemned by critics who say the revised regulations, which are aimed at cutting red tape, will hurt biodiversity and wildlife at a most precarious time.
"This latest disastrous decision deals a devastating blow to our natural inheritance and shamefully abandons our moral responsibility to be good stewards of our planet and its precious resources," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.
The new rules do not change the text of the law, but offer more leeway on how it is enforced. For instance, the threshold is now higher for designating a species as "threatened," which is just below "endangered." The revisions also allow agencies that enforce the ESA to now assess the economic impact of protecting a species, which was explicitly banned under the original rule so that a designation would be made solely on scientific studies.
"Over the objections of nearly everyone, the Trump Administration has eviscerated one of our nation's foundational environmental laws," Rebecca Riley, the legal director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said. "We're facing an extinction crisis and the administration is placing industry needs above the needs of our natural heritage."
The updated guidelines also make it more difficult for regulators to protect species that are, or will be, affected by climate change. Protecting species on land that is threatened by "melting glaciers, sea level rise" or other issues that "cannot be addressed by management actions" create regulatory burdens, the Interior Department said.
While the Trump administration "recognizes the value of critical habitat as a conservation tool, in some cases, designation of critical habitat is not prudent," the department added.
The ESA, which was signed into law by President Nixon in 1973, has largely enjoyed bipartisan support and is credited with restoring the population of bald eagles and humpback whales, among several other species.
In 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said that the ESA had prevented "99 percent of the species" under its protection from extinction.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the ranking member on the subcommittee that oversees the Interior Department, slammed the administration for taking "a wrecking ball" to the EPA and condemned its "determination to dismantle bedrock environmental laws, turn a blind eye to science, and roll over for special interests."
Yet the new rules are supported by several trade groups and Republican politicians.
The acting president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute, Christopher Guith, said the new revisions "strike an appropriate balance" between protecting wildlife and developing natural resources.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz also praised the reforms, claiming that the ESA has "inflicted more harm than good on Texas ranchers and farmers." Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said that the current implementation of the ESA "is drawn out and ineffective."
The Western Energy Alliance, an oil and natural gas industry association, echoed the sentiment, saying in a statement that the ESA had "been weaponized to stop" economic production and created red tape that actually impedes conservation, according to the Interior Department.
The government's rollback also comes just months after the United Nations released a report that found that species extinction was accelerating and warned of grave impacts to global life, including humans.
"The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever," Sir Robert Watson, the study's chair, said in a statement. "We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide."
The report stressed that up to 1 million species are currently threatened with extinction, many of which will disappear within the coming decades.
The new rules will surely be challenged in court. California, which is home to the most endangered species of any state, and Massachusetts officials have already said they will file a lawsuit in the coming weeks on behalf of a coalition of states.
"We're ready to fight to preserve this important law – the species with whom we share this planet, and depend on, deserve no less," said Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California.
