Accidentally killing a bald eagle, running over a manatee with a boat, or clearing a nesting site for grizzly bears during a logging operation used to carry real legal consequences. Under a new interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, those incidents may no longer qualify as violations at all.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued an internal memo on September 14, signed by FWS Director Brian Nesvik, outlining a reinterpretation of the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Under the new reading, only intentional acts targeting a protected animal would count as an illegal "take" — defined as any attempt to harm, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a listed species. Accidental deaths, even those that could reasonably have been anticipated, would no longer meet the legal threshold for a violation.

The change affects more than 1,600 species currently protected under the Act.

"This stabs at the very heart of the Endangered Species Act by giving federal approval to the killing of some of America's most beloved wildlife," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, which obtained the memo and made it public.

Why This Is a Significant Shift

The practical weight of this change is enormous — because the vast majority of endangered species deaths don't happen on purpose.

Endangered animals are killed incidentally during logging, shipping, mining, drilling, farming, and development. A ship strike kills a right whale. Heavy machinery crushes a spotted owl's nest. A dam construction project floods a habitat. None of those involve anyone deliberately targeting a protected animal — but under the previous interpretation of the law, they were still violations because the harm was foreseeable.

The new reading narrows enforcement to something closer to criminal intent. You'd have to prove someone meant to kill or harm the protected animal, which is a drastically harder bar to clear.

"It just creates a huge loophole," said Dan Ashe, who led the Fish and Wildlife Service under President Obama and is now president of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. "It completely relieves people of any responsibility for their actions, even consequences that can be easily predicted."

Andrew Mergen, a Harvard professor who argued endangered species enforcement cases at the Justice Department, was more blunt: "What the administration is proposing to do is take all of the force out of what we have all understood the act to mean: Don't kill endangered species."

This Is the Second Blow in the Same Week

The memo arrived the same day a separate but related rule took effect — one that rescinded the federal government's longstanding regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act. That definition had included habitat destruction as a form of harm to protected species. Without it, destroying a critical habitat — a breeding ground, a nesting area, a migration corridor — no longer automatically counts as harming the animals that depend on it.

Both changes came from the same agency, in the same week, without new legislation. Congress didn't vote. The Endangered Species Act itself wasn't amended. The administration changed how the existing law is interpreted.

The ESA was signed by President Nixon in 1973 and is credited by federal wildlife officials with preventing the extinction of the bald eagle, the American alligator, the California condor, and the gray whale — among dozens of other species that came back from the brink specifically because of the law's protections.

Legal Challenges Are Already Coming

States and conservation groups have filed multiple lawsuits seeking to reverse the changes. The Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, and others have all signaled they're going to court.

"This effort to gut protections for endangered and threatened species has the same two features of most Trump administration actions: it's a gift to industry, and it's illegal," said Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation at Earthjustice. "We'll see the Trump administration in court about it."

The administration has framed the changes as reducing regulatory burden on businesses and returning the law to its "original intent." Conservation groups argue the original intent of the law was explicitly to prevent extinction — and that removing liability for foreseeable accidental deaths is fundamentally incompatible with that purpose.

Curious for more stories that keep you informed and entertained? From the latest headlines to everyday insights, YourLifeBuzz has more to explore. Dive into what’s next.