Context:

Three Democratic U.S. senators, Adam Schiff, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Cory Booker, have raised concerns with the Trump administration regarding a proposed rule change that would eliminate habitat protections for endangered and threatened species. They have questioned whether industry influenced the drafting of this rule and are seeking clarity on how the administration plans to continue protecting these species if the rule changes. The core issue revolves around the definition of 'harm' in the Endangered Species Act, where the proposed change suggests that habitat modification should not be considered harm. Environmentalists argue that this could allow industries to evade penalties for actions that lead to the extinction of species like the Florida panther and spotted owl. The senators emphasized that removing habitat protection undermines the Endangered Species Act and have demanded explanations on how the act will be enforced amid proposed government efficiency measures that could reduce federal staff and agency funding.

Dive Deeper:

• Three Democratic senators have expressed their concerns over a proposed rule by the Trump administration that would remove habitat protections for endangered species, questioning if industry had a role in drafting this rule.

• The senators, Adam Schiff, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Cory Booker, sent a letter to the Departments of Interior and Commerce inquiring about the administration's plan to protect species if habitat protections are lifted.

• The controversy centers on redefining 'harm' in the Endangered Species Act, suggesting that altering habitats should not count as harm, which has traditionally included any actions that could harm species.

• Environmentalists are worried that the new rule could allow industries to claim they did not intend to harm species, potentially leading to the extinction of critically endangered species, such as the Florida panther and spotted owl.

• The senators argue that the proposed rule circumvents the Endangered Species Act, emphasizing the necessity of habitat for species survival and questioning the enforcement of the act amid proposed staff reductions and funding cuts.

• The proposed rule is currently open for public comment, and environmentalists have pledged to challenge it in court if it is implemented.

• The Departments of Commerce and Interior have not responded to inquiries regarding their stance on the proposed rule change.