The Trump administration has sought to weaken the landmark Endangered Species Act, credited with saving iconic animals including the bald eagle (Jim WATSON)
President Donald Trump's administration on Friday finalized a rule narrowing the definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act, in a move conservationists warned could open the door to widespread habitat destruction.
The Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce framed the change as returning the law to its original intent, ending what they called years of overreach.
"For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses," said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in a statement.
Advertisement
Advertisement
"That approach turned routine activity into a regulatory trap, drove up costs that impacted people's lives, and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended. This action restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed."
The landmark Endangered Species Act -- passed in 1973 and credited with saving the bald eagle, American alligator and other iconic species -- prohibits the "take" of endangered species, and defines "take" to mean "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."
In implementing the law, the government further defined "harm" to include "significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering."
That definition stood for decades, notably surviving a 1995 Supreme Court case that focused on the protection of old-growth forests for spotted owls.
Advertisement
Advertisement
In proposing the revision last year, the Trump administration cited a 2024 ruling by the conservative-tilted Supreme Court that overrode the longstanding "Chevron doctrine," under which courts deferred to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
But conservation groups said the change would open the way to industrial activity that destroys habitats and was at odds with the statute.
"For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn't be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food," said Kristen Boyle, an attorney for Earthjustice, which vowed to sue.
"If animals don't have a place to live, they can't live. Spotted owls, Atlantic salmon, Florida panthers and thousands of other species need protections for the wild places where they make their homes," added Tara Zuardo, a senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity.
ia/pnb
Up next
Housing affordability bill is about to become law, even after Trump refuses to sign it 'in PROTEST'
Comments include skepticism about the housing bill’s effectiveness, concerns over corporate loopholes, and criticism of President Trump’s refusal to sign it, seen by some as prioritizing voter suppression via the SAVE Act over affordable housing. Other comments point to rising costs and political blame.
Powered by Yahoo Scout. Views expressed are from commenters only.
Bipartisan housing affordability bill set to become law on Friday — unless Trump vetoes it
President Trump has expressed his refusal to sign a bipartisan housing affordability bill, but unless he vetoes it, the legislation is on track to become law due to a constitutional waiting period.
The bill, known as the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, aims to improve housing affordability by incentivizing local governments to build more homes, streamlining environmental review processes, expanding access to mortgages, modular homes, and restricting large corporate investors from purchasing single-family homes.
The legislation has broad support from industry groups, civic organizations, and low-income housing advocates, as well as 89% of registered voters, but its impact on addressing housing affordability concerns remains uncertain due to most housing regulations being set at the state and local levels.
A sweeping bipartisan housing affordability bill is set to become law in a matter of hours, even after President Trump reiterated on Friday that he won't sign the legislation.
"I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT," Trump posted on Truth Social on Friday morning.
But unless Trump vetoes the bill, which he didn't float as a possibility in his latest post, the housing bill remains on track to become law due to a quirk of constitutional law. The bill was formally presented to Trump on June 29, kicking off a 10-day waiting period — excluding Sundays — while Congress is in session before it can become law without his signature.
Even if Trump did veto the bill, the final version passed so overwhelmingly — 85-5 in the Senate and 358-32 in the House — that Congress could potentially override his veto.
The legislation, called the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, aims to improve housing affordability by incentivizing local governments to build more homes by streamlining complex environmental review processes, making it easier for credit unions and banks to issue mortgages, expanding access to modular homes, and restricting large corporate investors from purchasing single-family homes.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Following months of negotiations, the bill passed Congress by wide margins in late June and was sent to Trump for his signature. But just hours before a signing ceremony was set to take place, Trump said he wouldn't sign the bill, saying he instead wanted Congress to focus on the SAVE America Act, a piece of voter identification legislation that lacks the votes to pass the Senate.
In an earlier Truth Social post, he called the housing bill "of minor importance compared to lower interest rates," and later told reporters that it was "so unimportant" and "a yawn" compared to the voter ID bill.
The legislation has broad support from mortgage and homebuilding industry groups, civic organizations, and low-income housing advocates. The general public likes it too: A recent poll from the American Property Owners Alliance, a nonprofit organization funded by the National Association of Realtors, found that 89% of registered voters supported the bill.
Housing affordability has become a growing concern for many Americans after average rents and home prices soared during the pandemic. The median home for sale in the US was listed for $430,000 in June, up more than 34% from $320,000 in mid-2019, according to Realtor.com data. Median rent, meanwhile, is around $1,951 a month, a 40% jump from $1,392 seven years earlier, according to Zillow.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Exactly how meaningfully the legislation can address the problem remains to be seen. Most rules and regulations related to housing supply are set by state and local governments, not federally, although the bill aims to combat this through incentives like funding for municipalities that reform restrictive zoning laws and improve regional housing planning.
"The impact of these changes should be incrementally positive for demand and, depending on implementation, potentially more positive for supply, but those changes will take time," Morgan Stanley strategists led by James Egan wrote in a note in June.
Powered by Yahoo Scout. Yahoo is using AI to generate key points from user comments. This means the info may not always match user comments about the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Comments include skepticism about the housing bill’s effectiveness, concerns over corporate loopholes, and criticism of President Trump’s refusal to sign it, seen by some as prioritizing voter suppression via the SAVE Act over affordable housing. Other comments point to rising costs and political blame.
Views expressed are from commenters only.
Up next
Trump administration proposal would 'all but end' scientific merit in grant funding, critics say
Corinne Purtill
4 min read
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.
The White House Office of Management and Budget has proposed sweeping new rules for the way federal grants are awarded and overseen. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)
A new rule proposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget would fundamentally overhaul the way federal grants are awarded and overseen — a sweeping change that one scientific society said "would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government."
Proposed in late May, the rule would give political appointees unprecedented control over federal grants for research, education and infrastructure, and specifies that government funds can only be spent on projects "aligned with administration policies and priorities," according to a copy of the proposed rule.
The rule would also restrict research topics, limit U.S. scientists' ability to collaborate with colleagues in other countries and make it easier for the government to suspend or cancel grants at any time.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The changes are intended to improve "transparency, accountability, and oversight for Federal awards" while "ensuring that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused," according to the White House office.
But critics say that if the rule is implemented, the final sign-off for grants will no longer be in the hands of subject-matter experts within individual agencies, but in those of political appointees.
"This touches all parts of American life," said Dr. Eric Rafla-Yuan, a psychiatrist who practices at the Veterans Administration and San Diego County's psychiatric hospital.
"Control of how all of the federal grants and programs are funded will fall under a small group of highly partisan individuals who would have very few limits on how they spend these billions of taxpayer dollars," said Rafla-Yuan, who also chairs the Committee to Protect Public Mental Health advocacy group. "This touches everyone's life, even if they don't realize it."
Advertisement
Advertisement
OMB published the proposed rule May 29, opening a 45-day comment period that closes Monday.
By midday Thursday, the Federal Register logged nearly 100,000 comments about the proposal, many of them expressing concern.
"I understand the need for oversight, fiscal responsibility, and accountability. That is not the issue," wrote Jack Feldman, a neuroscientist who holds the David Geffen School of Medicine Chair in Neuroscience at UCLA. "The issue is whether scientific research is to be judged by scientific merit, or whether it can be approved, denied, or terminated according to broad political criteria that may change from one administration to the next."
Advertisement
Advertisement
Crucially, the rule converts policies governing federal grants from "guidance" into binding regulations that all agencies would be required to follow. It would give political appointees power to override federal agencies' merit-based reviews and mandate that a political appointee review decisions to ensure that all awards "demonstrably advance the President's policy priorities."
The elevation of political appointees in what were previously merit-based decisions has alarmed many scientists.
"The proposed rule changes would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government," read a statement from the Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space research.
Researchers and science groups have also expressed concern about a section of the rule prohibiting the promotion of "theories of disparate-impact liability" — a legal concept that refers to policies that appear neutral but cause disproportionate harm to certain groups.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The section's vague language and many loopholes could have a chilling effect on any research that studies the effects of a disease, policy or public health intervention on any specific group of people, Rafla-Yuan said.
As an example, he said, "if there's a specific age range that is at higher risk for suicide, and we want to figure out, well, what's going on with people that are aged 14 to 19 ... we can't do that under the wording in this rule."
New restrictions on collaborations with scientists in other countries would hinder opportunities for U.S. researchers and limit innovation, said Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.
"Science is a global enterprise. Especially in biomedical and public health fields, diseases don't care about borders or government policies," she said.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Zoe Lofgren sent a letter Wednesday from California's Democratic congressional delegation asking OMB to rescind the proposal, outlining concerns about its impact on scientific innovation, U.S. competitiveness and the fiscal stability of local governments, many of which rely on federal grants for local services.
The proposed rule grants the federal government broad powers to suspend or cancel grants for any reason, introducing "unprecedented unpredictability into local governance," the lawmakers wrote, "leaving vital infrastructure projects unfinished and abandoning vulnerable populations who rely on these services."
Republican Sen. Susan Collins has also asked the White House to withdraw certain parts of the letter and extend the public comment period, saying the proposed rule as written would "harm small and rural communities, undermine scientific and biomedical research, and conflict with Congress' control over the federal funding process."
More than 300 wild horses in Mono Lake have been rounded up by a government contractor.
For the past three days, Ronda Kauk has watched through high-powered binoculars as low-flying helicopters pursue hundreds of her relatives across Mono Lake and corral them into massive metal trailers.
"I feel numb, heartbroken," Kauk told Native News Online through tears. "Like I failed to protect them. These horses are my ancestors, my relatives. It hurts."
The wild horses of Mono Lake are sacred to Kauk and other Native peoples in the eastern Sierra Nevada region. The federal government claims the area is overrun with a herd of nearly 700, the impetus for the roundup and removal of three-quarters of the horses that began Wednesday.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The area's tribes have called for a two-year delay to allow for non-lethal fertility management alternatives, including immunocontraception, and meaningful co-management planning with tribal governments. According to a press release from the Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe, the U.S. Forest Service has not responded to those calls.
Kauk is a member of the Mono Lake Kutzadika'a Tribe and works as a tribal historic preservation officer and cultural monitor for the nearby Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation. She is also the founder of the Indigenous Wild Horse Society. On June 30, Kauk, along with Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe Chairman Shane Saulque and Vice Chairwoman Rana Saulque, filed a lawsuit against the federal agencies behind the removal and asked the court for an emergency order to halt this week's roundup. The court denied the order Tuesday, contesting claims that tribal consultation never took place. The lawsuit remains active.
"Every day this operation continues, it happens on land where our history and our voices haven't been heard," Rana said in a statement released earlier this week. "The agencies know that. We know that. Our lawsuit continues, and we intend to hold them accountable for what happens on our ancestral lands while this case is still being decided."
In the meantime, Kauk and others are grieving the loss of the horses — which are considered living culture — as the government's land management policies conflict with Indigenous knowledge and cultural reverence. Along with the loss of the horses, low-flying helicopters and motorized vehicles used to round up the animals cause damage to sacred sites on the land, which is home to burial sites and is rich with cultural objects.
Advertisement
Advertisement
"I feel like they're raping the land, stealing our children, our culture," Kauk said. "That is how I feel right now."
The Forest Service announced the removal on June 22, saying the horses are in excess, pose safety risks and damage habitats. According to the announcement, the agency's management plan stipulates that the area can sustain only 130 to 238 wild horses at a time. As of Thursday, 354 wild horses had been rounded up by C.D. Warner Livestock LLC, a Utah-based company that the Forest Service contracted for the removal. The horses will be held in off-range corrals in Modoc County and put up for adoption.
Kauk has been up before sunrise this week to witness the removal. She says she feels a responsibility to be there for the horses who have brought her healing.
Years ago, after Kauk's mother died, she was walking in the woods near her home when she came face-to-face with one of the wild horses, an older mare in the herd.
Advertisement
Advertisement
"We just came up on each other, and we just stared into each other's eyes," she said. "I felt like she was saying to me, 'You're okay, do not be afraid.'"
President Trump abruptly pushed out the three remaining members of the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission, leaving the agency without any active members less than four months before midterm elections.
The Supreme Court's recent decision granting Trump the authority to fire members of independent agencies, including the Election Assistance Commission, has raised concerns about the president's attempts to centralize control over election administration.
State officials and voting rights groups are alarmed by Trump's latest firings, viewing them as a dangerous escalation in the effort to weaken safeguards protecting free and fair elections in the November midterms.
Voting rights groups and election officials are sounding alarms after President Donald Trumpabruptly pushed out the three remaining members of an independent agency tasked with supporting officials who run the nation's elections.
The president's latest firings leave the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission without any active members less than four months before midterm elections with the balance of power in Congress — and the future of Trump's agenda — at stake.
A Republican appointee on the four-member panel resigned, while the remaining two Democratic appointees reportedly received termination emails from the White House. A fourth commissioner left the panel earlier this year.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, the chair of the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, said Trump's latest firings are "incredibly irresponsible."
Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group engaged in several legal battles with the Trump administration, bluntly called the president's firings a "pathetic power grab."
State officials are sounding alarms after Trump purged the remaining members of an independent agency tasked with supporting states as they run the nation's elections, which critics fear marks the president's latest attempt to strong-arm control of midterms (AFP/Getty)
The commission, which was established by the Help America Vote Act more than 20 years ago, operates largely behind the scenes performing the routine work of distributing grants and election security support.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Without any commissioners on the panel, that work is effectively paralyzed.
But the panel has played a critical role in the president's attempts to assume federal control over the nation's elections. His 2025 executive order pushed the commission to implement proof of citizenship on voter registration forms and deny funding to states that that didn't receive mail-in ballots by Election Day. That executive order and another targeting election administration have been blocked by the courts.
Trump is gutting the agency "because he's scared of the voting power of the American people," according to Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert. "This move is another pathetic attempt to sow doubt in our elections, which are safely and expertly run by states and localities."
Without support from the commission, which plays a crucial role overseeing federal funding and voting system standards, election officials like secretaries of state are left without critical "support, stability and protection from political pressure," according to the League of Women Voters.
Advertisement
Advertisement
"The American people deserve elections administered by trusted professionals, not shaped by political interference," Celina Stewart, CEO of the century-old voting rights group, said in a statement.
"This is not a routine personnel decision — it is a dangerous escalation in the effort to weaken the safeguards that protect free and fair elections in the November midterms," she said.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes called the move "irresponsible and dangerous," and Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read said the firings are yet another attempt by the Trump administration to "disrupt and sow distrust in our elections."
"Purging commissioners just months before the midterm elections and further gutting support for our state and local elections officials is a blatant part of his plan to politicize our elections and enable more unlawful and dangerous election interference," Sen. Alex Padilla and Rep. Joe Morelle said in a joint statement.
The Election Assistance Commission largely performs the routine work of helping states run elections, but the president is accused of weaponizing the panel as he tries to centralize control over election administration to boost his chances of Republican victories (AFP/Getty)
Advocates see the latest purge as part of a broader pattern of the president's attempts to centralize control over election administration, which is left to the states, in an attempt to boost Republican candidates and suppress Democratic turnout.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Trump's purge joins a series of White House-directed actions targeting the nation's elections and the people who run them.
The administration — fueled by the president's obsession with his loss in the 2020 election and baseless allegations that the results were rigged against him — has launched a sweeping attack on the nation's election infrastructure since returning to office last year while Republican allies carve up election maps ahead of midterm elections this fall.
A false claim that millions of noncitizens are voting in federal elections is fueling the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE America Act, and the president is calling on Republican senators to blow up the Senate filibuster and stuff the legislation into other bills to get it passed.
Election officials and voting rights groups fear the administration's threats could intimidate election workers and chill voter participation.
"There should be no doubt in any American's mind: the biggest threat to the integrity of the 2026 midterms is President Donald Trump," Michael McNulty with voting rights group Issue One said in a statement.
"This is not a partisan message, simply a factual one. Our Constitution is clear that state and local bodies – not the president – run elections, and yet President Trump is doing everything within his power to sow mistrust and usurp the balance of power established by our Founding Fathers in the system of checks and balances and federalism that they created," he added.
