President Trump didn’t launch his political career to upset Democrats and RINOs, but much of what he’s done through one-and-a-half terms has angered many on the left and the moderate right.
And he’s angering them again, with a big change he’s making to a law long-used by the hard left and soft right to burden all Americans.
Advertisement
The Trump administration announced Friday that it is changing how the federal government interprets the term “harm” under the Endangered Species Act, saying the move is intended to restore the law’s original meaning.
The Departments of Commerce and the Interior said they are rescinding what they described as an outdated regulatory definition of the term.
Advertisement
Under the revised interpretation, “harm” will no longer include habitat modifications that could negatively affect the survival of a protected plant or animal species, Just the News reported.
Administration officials argued that previous administrations expanded the definition beyond the intent of the law, using it to block energy development, logging, infrastructure projects, and certain uses of private property.
“For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a news release.
“This action restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed,” Burgum, a former governor of North Dakota, added.
In a joint statement, the departments said the core protections of the Endangered Species Act will remain unchanged, including the prohibition on actions that directly injure or kill endangered species.
Officials also said the regulatory change is grounded in the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which requires courts to independently interpret the text of federal laws rather than defer to agencies’ interpretations when evaluating regulations.
The U.S. Supreme Court last week significantly expanded presidential authority over the executive branch, ruling 6-3 that presidents may remove officials from independent federal agencies without the firing protections that had been recognized for decades.
The decision handed President Trump the authority to remove Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee whose case became a central test of the administration’s effort to broaden presidential removal powers.
In doing so, the Court overturned its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, ending a longstanding precedent that allowed Congress to provide certain executive branch officials with protections from at-will removal.
The ruling is expected to have broad implications for independent agencies that oversee areas including labor relations, federal employment, workplace discrimination, consumer protection, aviation safety and financial regulation, The Hill noted.
In an analysis of the ruling, commentator Ben Dyke called it a “bombshell,” adding, “This is historic.”
He also indicated that the majority of justices were correct in returning constitutional power to the president, who is the head of the Executive Branch and should not be impeded by the Legislative Branch from exercising his authorities.
“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in the ruling.
Beyond the Federal Trade Commission, the ruling is expected to affect roughly two dozen multimember independent agencies across the federal government, giving presidents broader authority to replace commissioners and board members with appointees who align with their policy priorities.
“It is a power, however, that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him,” their dissent continued.
But the dissent is at odds with the Constitution’s plain language.
As Dyke pointed out, Article II begins with this sentence: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
That, he says, makes clear that the founders intended for the president alone to make all decisions regarding Executive Branch authorities, not the heads of Executive Branch offices established by Congress, many of whom may not share the president’s policy preferences and could slow-walk or even ignore his orders.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
