The Trump administration has finalized a rule narrowing the definition of 'harm' under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), effectively removing federal protections against habitat destruction for threatened and endangered species.

川普政府已定案一項規則，縮小了《瀕危物種法》(ESA) 下「傷害」的定義，實際上取消了針對受威脅與瀕危物種棲息地被破壞的聯邦保護。

The regulatory shift, jointly issued by the Departments of the Interior and Commerce, restricts the definition of 'harm' to actions that directly injure or kill a protected species, excluding the modification or degradation of critical habitats. This represents a departure from a fifty-year regulatory framework that interpreted 'harm' to include habitat loss—a precedent previously upheld by the Supreme Court in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1995). The administration asserts that this realignment is necessitated by recent judicial rulings limiting the interpretive authority of federal agencies and is intended to mitigate infringements upon private property rights and economic development.

此次監管轉向由內政部與商務部共同發布，將「傷害」的定義限制在直接傷害或殺死受保護物種的行為，不包括對關鍵棲息地的修改或退化。這代表了對五十年前監管框架的背離，該框架將「傷害」解釋為包括棲息地喪失——此先例先前在 1995 年的 Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon 案中由最高法院支持。政府主張，由於近期司法裁決限制了聯邦機構的解釋權，因此必須進行此次調整，旨在減輕對私有財產權與經濟發展的侵害。

Stakeholder positioning reveals a stark divergence in perspective. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick characterized the previous interpretation as a regulatory impediment to American prosperity and lawful land use. Conversely, ecologists and legal scholars argue that habitat preservation is the primary determinant of species recovery. They cite data indicating that approximately 81% of species listed as endangered between 1975 and 2017 were primarily threatened by habitat loss, rather than direct mortality. Furthermore, Secretary Burgum suggested that advancements in genetic 'de-extinction' technology may diminish the necessity for stringent habitat protections.

利益相關者的立場呈現出劇烈的分歧。內政部長 Doug Burgum 與商務部長 Howard Lutnick 將之前的解釋定格為美國繁榮與合法土地利用的監管障礙。相反地，生態學家與法律學者認為，棲息地保存是物種恢復的首要決定因素。他們引用數據指出，在 1975 年至 2017 年間被列為瀕危的物種中，約 81% 主要受到棲息地喪失的威脅，而非直接死亡。此外，Burgum 部長建議，基因「脫 extinction」技術的進步可能會降低對嚴格棲息地保護的需求。

Geographic and biological implications are particularly acute in California, where nearly 300 ESA-protected species reside. The removal of habitat protections may facilitate expanded oil drilling, mining, and logging in biodiverse regions. Specific species identified as vulnerable to this policy shift include the Northern Spotted Owl, Florida Manatee, Monarch Butterfly, and various marine mammals. Environmental organizations, including Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, have indicated that they will initiate litigation to challenge the legality of this rule, citing a lack of environmental impact analysis and a contradiction of the Act's congressional intent.

地理與生物影響在加州尤為嚴重，該地有近 300 種受 ESA 保護的物種。取消棲息地保護可能會促使生物多樣性豐富地區擴大石油鑽探、採礦與伐木。被確定為易受此政策轉向影響的特定物種包括北方斑點鴞、佛羅里達海牛、黑脈金斑蝶以及各種海洋哺乳動物。包括 Earthjustice 與 Sierra Club 在內的環境組織已表示，他們將提起訴訟以挑戰此規則的合法性，理由是缺乏環境影響分析且與該法案的國會原意相抵觸。

The current situation is characterized by a finalized federal rule that permits habitat modification, pending the outcome of anticipated legal challenges from conservation groups.

目前的狀況是，聯邦規則已定案並允許修改棲息地，目前正等待保育團體預期將提出的法律挑戰結果。