The Pact to Endanger Species
In celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, the Service created a series of listed species portraits, including this one of a California condor. Artist: Cal Robinson, public affairs specialist at the Service's Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
The Erosion of Habitat: Why the Recision of "Harm" Matters
The Trump Administration recently rescinded the regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). While this might seem like a nuanced legal shift, removing "significant habitat modification" from the federal definition of an illegal "taking" opens the door for industrial development, logging, and drilling directly on land and waters essential for imperiled species.
For decades, conservationists have helped us understand that protecting a habitat is central to protecting the species itself. Without this foundation, the ESA’s efficacy becomes murky—much like the water systems threatened by increased drilling and commercial runoff. One is left to ask: Where is the ESA’s power to protect if it can no longer protect the home?
Parallel Disruptions: From Tech Epicenters to Climate Realities
This environmental rollback mirrors the disruptions we are currently witnessing in the tech world. In my home town of San Francisco—the epicenter of the AI boom—we are observing in real time how rapid technological expansion reshapes a city. We see it in the soaring cost of living, deepening housing shortages, and the strain on the water supply driven by massive data centers. We have grown accustomed to the disruptions of tech booms, which frequently come at the expense of cultural diversity, the arts, and community displacement.
Simultaneously, we are grappling with the visceral disruptions of climate change. Just recently, dangerous air quality from Canadian wildfires drifted across the border, choking major U.S. population centers while devastating the Canadian landscape. The same environmental vulnerability echoes in the fires of Pacific Palisades, Palermo, Sicily, and across regions of Spain and Portugal.
With so much disruption occurring, I decided to ask Google’s Gemini—itself a product of this technological shift—if the recent administration ruling held implications for the human species. Gemini delivered a slightly coy, yet profound reply:
"The ESA does not—and cannot—apply to the human race. It is a legal framework exclusively designed to protect non-human animals, plants, and their ecosystems from extinction. However, because humans depend on healthy ecosystems for survival, the law intrinsically serves to protect human health and existence."
A visit to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s website revealed a starkly different framing, under the headline: “Department of the Interior Restores Clear ESA Enforcement by Rescinding Misguided ‘Harm’ Definition.” In practice, this new ruling allows activities like logging, oil drilling, and mining on protected lands, provided the animals are not directly killed.
Throughout its tenure, the administration has sought to strip broad protections for "threatened" species by allowing economic costs to be weighed during the listing process. In effect, they are applying a balance-sheet strategy—measuring immediate commercial opportunity against irreplaceable natural capital. Conservationists warn that because habitat loss is the primary driver of extinction, this rule strips the ESA of its most critical safeguard.
The Shared Crisis of Habitat and Housing
The threat of habitat loss plagues all species, and the crisis facing wildlife shares a profound parallel with the modern human housing crisis. If we lack the empathy to care about species we assume have no impact on our day-to-day lives, we need only look at the headlines tracking our own affordability epidemic.
The United States has experienced an unprecedented rise in homelessness. Between the 2023 and 2024 Point-in-Time (PIT) counts, homelessness surged 18 percent, rising from 653,104 to 771,480 people.
Like any other organism, humans deprived of safe, stable habitats do not thrive. The lack of housing security erodes mental health, exacerbates substance dependency, and strains broader communities as ad-hoc encampments overwhelm under-resourced social services.
Habitat is a fundamental requirement for survival. It does not matter if the subject is the shortnose sturgeon, the California condor, the interior least tern, or our neighbors in San Francisco. Stable habitat—or housing—is a proven social determinant of health. If we turn away from protecting these foundational spaces now, the cost of what stands to be lost will be universal.
—————————————————————-
Ways to help reverse the rescind:
1. Contact your U.S. Senators and Representative
Lawmakers can introduce or support legislation to overturn regulatory rollbacks or force agencies to reconsider.
Find your Representative: Use the U.S. House of Representatives Finder to locate your local congressperson.
Find your Senators: Use the U.S. Senate Directory to contact your state senators.
Capitol Switchboard: You can also call 202-225-3121 to be directly connected to the Washington, DC office of any member of Congress.
2. Environmental & Conservation Coalitions
Major conservation organizations are actively challenging the rescission in federal court to protect essential wildlife habitats. You can contact these
groups to support their lawsuits, sign petitions, or join advocacy campaigns:
3. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
While the final rule has been published (effective September 14, 2026), you can still register your objection with the acting directors of the agency.
Ecological Services Contact: John Tirpak (Acting Assistant Director)
Phone: 703-358-2171
Email: ADEcologicalServices@fws.gov (Include "1018-BI38" in the subject line)