US states sue Trump over weakening of endangered species protections

In practice, a group of attorneys general in the United States have sued President Donald Trump's administration for weakening protections for endangered species.

Key points

• The group of 20 Democratic-led states, plus the District of Columbia, filed two lawsuits on Wednesday.
• As he promised to open protected lands to greater oil exploration and private development, "Drill, baby, drill" was a popular slogan during Trump's 2024 re-election campaign.
• "Caring for our wildlife and our environment is part of caring for our future, " California Attorney General Rob Bonta remarked in an official note.
• The 1973 law has been credited with helping restore the populations of animals such as condors, grizzly bears and humpback whales.
• But the Trump administration's new rule marks a "reversal of staggering proportions", the states argued.

For context, the group of 20 Democratic-led states, plus the District of Columbia, filed two lawsuits on Wednesday.

In practice, the complaints come less than two months after the Department of Interior and Department of Commerce confirmed final rules that could produce it easier for firms to develop sensitive lands that are home to endangered species.

"The Trump administration is trying to undermine the law, the will of Congress and the will of the people who overwhelmingly support protections for endangered species, " Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown remarked at a news conference.

"Instead of stewardship, this administration's approach to our land, to our water, is one of exploitation."

One of the two lawsuits argues that the administration has unlawfully narrowed the definition of "harm" in the 1973 Endangered Species Act, a landmark piece of legislation to protect animals and plants at risk of extinction.

"Harm", under the law, has long been interpreted to include threats to those species' habitats.

It would open the door to activities such as mining and oil drilling in sensitive habitats so long as they are not "directed immediately and intentionally" at particular animals. Environmental groups have additionally sued over the change.

Meanwhile, the second lawsuit filed on Wednesday challenges two new rules. One eliminates wide protections for newly-threatened species unless the US Fish and Wildlife Service creates species-specific regulations.

In practice, the second rule requires the administration to consider objections from private businesses before declaring areas "critical habitats".

Meanwhile, the lawsuit argues that such changes leave endangered species with fewer safeguards than what Congress had outlined in its law.

For context, the 1973 law has been credited with helping restore the populations of animals such as condors, grizzly bears and humpback whales. It is seen as a keystone achievement of US conservation efforts.

But the Trump administration has pledged to roll back environmental protections in favour of prioritising economic expansion.

Critics of Trump's regulation-slashing fear he may trigger irreversible changes, pushing species to extinction.

"Caring for our wildlife and our environment is part of caring for our future, " California Attorney General Rob Bonta remarked in an official note. "Yet President Trump seems to care only for himself and his industry friends."

But the Trump administration has argued that environmental protections have gone too far.

It accused Wednesday's lawsuits of seeking to defend "regulatory overreach" that went beyond what Congress had intended.

"The role of federal agencies is to faithfully implement the Endangered Species Act as written, not to expand its reach through interpretations favoured by advocacy organizations, " an Interior Department spokesperson remarked, according to the Reuters news agency.

In short, US states sue Trump over weakening of endangered species protections is the central thread here, and readers can expect follow-up reporting as the picture becomes clearer.