Why the Endangered Species Act Matters More than People Think and What You Can Do

What they are doing to the ESA matters more than people think. It’s not just about wildlife, and rolling back their protections so industry can run unfettered. It’s about the legal language that governs how we protect life. Once "harm" no longer includes indirect destruction, everything becomes deniable.

What the proposed change does
The administration is proposing to "rescind the definition of harm" under the Endangered Species Act, so that so that destroying an animal’s habitat no longer counts as harm—unless you specifically intended to kill them.

This means, you can bulldoze a forest, poison a stream, or pave over wetlands—and claim innocence. Because “intent” is now the test.

If you didn’t mean to kill the animal directly, you didn’t legally harm it — no matter the devastation left behind. It severs the reality of destruction from the reality of accountability.

Why are they doing this?
They're doing this for short-term profit, long-term control, and to lock in an extractive, authoritarian model before the climate collapse becomes undeniable to even the most distracted citizens. Here’s what’s really going on:

1. It’s for industry—but not just any industry.
This isn’t about economic growth. It’s about extractive industries—logging, mining, oil, gas, and real estate—getting unfettered access to what little is left of public lands and ecosystems. The Endangered Species Act is one of the last legal tools that has blocked:

• Pipelines
• Deforestation
• Land grabs
• Water theft

They want it gone because it gets in the way of exploitation.

2. It consolidates power.
If public goods like forests, water, and wildlife are “no longer protected,” they can be privatized. That’s what fascist capitalism does:

• Privatize the commons
• Extract for profit
• Redirect public pain to scapegoats

They're transferring public wealth (species, land, air) to private hands under the radar—just like they're doing with our data, our labor, and now, our ecosystems.

Why Now?
Because climate, economic and social collapse is coming—and they know it. Rather than change course, they’re:

• Deregulating protections
• Selling off what’s left
• Rewriting rules so they can’t be held accountable

They are racing ahead before the public wakes up. Because once people feel the pain—floods, blackouts, poisoned water—it’ll be too late to organize. So they’re locking the doors from the inside.

Why this matters for humanity
If they succeed, this redefinition won't stop with wildlife. The logic will spread — and soon:

• Cutting off access to clean water? Not harm.
• Gutting public health care? Just efficiency.
• Defunding housing during a heatwave? Just “policy.”
• Polluting air in low-income neighborhoods? Collateral damage.

So this is about more than conservation. It’s about erasing the language that once protected all forms life - human, animal and ecosystems alike.

The ability to name harm is what allows us to:

• Hold corporations and governments accountable
• Demand justice
• Protect future generations

This change sets a dangerous legal precedent: if it’s not intentional, it’s not harmful. That means:

• Mass suffering becomes invisible
• Corporate damage is excused
• Government failure is unaccountable

So this is more than just policy to give industry the rights to extract from protected lands. It's a moral downgrade. And a blueprint for the broader dismantling of public protections across society.

Why does it feel personal to women?
Women are the protectors of life: of children, of ecosystems, of truth. And this regime is attacking:

• Reproductive rights
• Clean water and food
• Education, PBS, and parental support
• And now, even nature herself

Conclusion:
This battle is not just about protecting wildlife. It’s about protecting human life, justice, and the future of all living systems. The weakening of the Endangered Species Act is a warning shot - about what happens when the language of protection is erased. If we lose the ability to define harm, we lose the ability to defend life.

We must stop this — not just for the polar bears or the wolves, but for ourselves, and for every generation yet to come.

---

What You Can Do?

Step 1: Submit a public comment.

The public has 25 more days to comment before it becomes much more difficult to undo. (The Deadlines is May 19, 2025 at 11:59 PM EST)

Tell the government you oppose this change. 

1. See Comment Template below - copy/edit however you like.
2. Then paste it in the comment section here: Comment on Proposed Rule 
3. Note: there's an option to share the comment anonymously
4. For those that want to go deeper you can read the full proposed rule: FWS Proposed Rule to Rescind the Definition of Harm under the Endangered Species Act.

Step 2: Share this post.
Help others understand what's at stake.

Don't let them erase harm. Because once they do, nothing is safe.

---

Comment Template

Below is the a Public Comment Template to Oppose Redefinition of “Harm” Under the Endangered Species Act. You can edit, copy and paste it into the comment field on Proposed Rule Comment page.

I am writing in strong opposition to the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act that would narrow the definition of “harm” to exclude habitat destruction.

This change is dangerous, deceptive, and destructive. It undermines decades of legal precedent and scientific understanding about what species need to survive—and it ignores the interconnected nature of ecosystems and all life on earth.

Habitat loss is harm.

You cannot destroy the places animals rely on to feed, breed, or shelter and claim you're not harming them, no more than you can burn someone's home down and say you are not harming the people that live there.

That’s not just bad policy—it’s biological nonsense.

If passed, this rule would allow companies to bulldoze forests, pollute rivers, and erase ecosystems—as long as they claim they didn’t intend to harm the species that live there. It’s a loophole big enough to drive extinction through.

These rollbacks do not reflect the will of the public, who overwhelmingly support protecting endangered species and the natural habitats they rely on.

Healthy ecosystems are not a luxury - they are the foundation of human existence. This is not just about the survival of endangered species — but for the survival of humanity itself.

I urge you to uphold the true spirit of the Endangered Species Act. Do not change the definition of “harm.” Protect the habitats. Protect the species. Protect our shared future.

---

Why Comment if They Are Going to Pass it Anyways

Because public comments are evidence. They create a legal paper trail for:

• Future lawsuits
• Congressional investigations
• Independent journalism
• Organizing momentum

And the courts have blocked rollbacks in the past because of public backlash and flawed comment processes. They matter legally, even if they don't have immediate political impacts.

🧭 So think of it this way: You're not appealing to the administration’s conscience.
You’re:

• Laying the groundwork for resistance
• Slowing their momentum
• Building the case for accountability
  

And you’re saying: “We saw this. We did not consent. We will not forget.”