Archive · 17 Sep 2026
Trump Memo Could Narrow Endangered Species ‘Take’ Protections
The United States has a law protecting animals and plants that are in danger of disappearing.
The law says people cannot illegally “take” protected animals.
A new government memo says this may mainly mean intentionally killing or capturing them.
Under that interpretation, accidentally hitting a whale with a boat might not count as a violation.
Cutting down a tree where bats live might also not count unless the person intended to kill or capture the bats.
This could mean some businesses and developers would not need special permits for accidental harm.
The Interior Department says the law still protects animals from many harmful actions.
The interpretation is connected to a recent change removing the government’s formal definition of “harm.”
A September 14 memo reportedly argues that only intentional killing or capture constitutes an illegal “take” under the Endangered Species Act.
The interpretation could exclude accidental deaths, such as a vessel striking a whale or tree removal killing bats, from the definition of “take.”
Developers and businesses might need fewer incidental take permits for activities that unintentionally injure or kill endangered species.
The Interior Department says the law still prohibits actions including harassing, pursuing, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting protected animals.
The memo follows the September 14 removal of the regulatory definition of “harm,” which officials say preserves prohibitions on direct injury and killing.
- Who
- The Trump administration, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Interior Department, developers, businesses, and endangered species are central to the issue.
- What
- An internal memo reportedly advances a narrower interpretation of “take” under the Endangered Species Act, potentially excluding some accidental killings or injuries.
- When
- The memo is dated September 14, and the related removal of the regulatory definition of “harm” took effect the same day.
- Where
- The change concerns enforcement of the Endangered Species Act in the United States.
- Why
- Administration officials say the changes reduce regulatory burdens and return enforcement to what they view as the statute’s original meaning; critics have expressed concern about weaker protections.
Broader Wildlife Protections
Narrower Statutory Interpretation
Meaning of “take”
Broader Wildlife Protections
The existing system can treat incidental killing or injury resulting from activities as a regulated take, making permits available to address that harm.
Narrower Statutory Interpretation
The memo’s reported interpretation says a take requires intent to kill or capture, so accidental deaths or injuries may not qualify.
Effect on businesses
Broader Wildlife Protections
Permitting and conservation measures help reduce the impact of development and other activities on endangered species.
Narrower Statutory Interpretation
Fewer incidental take permits would reduce regulatory burdens on developers and businesses.
Meaning of “harm”
Broader Wildlife Protections
Removing the regulatory definition of harm is viewed by opponents as potentially weakening protections for endangered wildlife.
Narrower Statutory Interpretation
The Interior Department says the change removes only the regulatory definition, while prohibitions on direct injury and killing remain in place.
- Memo date
- September 14
- Memo signer
- Brian Nesvik, director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
- Potential legal change
- Only intentional actions to kill or capture protected wildlife may qualify as a prohibited “take” under the reported interpretation.
- Permit impact
- Incidental take permits could be required in fewer circumstances for activities causing unintended harm.
- Related regulatory change
- The regulatory definition of “harm” was removed from federal regulations effective September 14.
- Official position
- The Interior Department says the Endangered Species Act continues to prohibit take, including harassment, pursuit, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, and collecting.
- Legal arguments cited
- Supporters reference Justice Antonin Scalia’s 1995 dissent and the 2024 Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.