Comments Needed!  * Endangered Species Act Alert *

Please be part of the movement to ensure 1 million comments are submitted by December 22^nd.

Tell the Trump administration to keep their hands off the ESA!  

The Endangered Species Act works. It brought bald eagles and gray wolves back from the edge of disappearing forever.

Steps:

1. There are four proposed rules, each with their own federal register submission link.

To make it convenient, we created a comment example below that includes all 4 rules.

The next step is to submit your comment 4 times!

Please cut and paste this same comment into these 4 links.

2. Click on these links to submit your comment.

Look for the green box “Submit A Public Comment”:

• Remove “Blanket 4(d) rule” for newly listed threatened species, FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0029
• Interagency Consultation, FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0044
• Critical Habitat Exclusion Analysis, FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0048
• Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0039,

Example:

To Whom it may Concern,

I am in strong opposition to the suite of proposed rulemakings that would significantly weaken implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)—one of our nation’s most effective and widely supported conservation laws.  Collectively, these proposed changes would shift the ESA away from science-based, precautionary conservation and toward increasingly discretionary, economically driven decision-making. 

1. I oppose the elimination of Threatened Species Protections (the Blanket 4(d) Rule)

The blanket 4(d) rule is a proven, science-based tool that gives threatened species immediate protections when they are most at risk. Eliminating the blanket rule will delay or weaken protections for newly listed species, putting them in harm’s way during the period when conservation actions are most critical.

• I oppose revising Section 7 Interagency Consultation Regulation

Section 7 consultation is the heart of the ESA; any weakening puts species survival at risk. Raising the threshold for “reasonably certain to occur” effects will erase legitimate scientific evidence and allow harmful actions to proceed without full review. Climate impacts, cumulative habitat loss, and landscape-scale consequences must be included in consultations as they are essential to understanding jeopardy. The rollback reinstates 2019 rules that courts and scientists criticized as inconsistent with the ESA’s conservation mandate. The rule should be withdrawn; the Service should restore the stronger 2024 protections instead of narrowing them.

• I oppose reinstating the Critical Habitat Exclusion Rule (Section 4(b)(2))

The 2020 rule improperly elevated economic and political considerations over the biological needs of species. Reinstating it contradicts the ESA’s purpose: to conserve ecosystems and recover species, not to reduce protections for industry convenience. The US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) must base exclusions on clear scientific evidence, not speculative economic concerns. Habitat loss is the primary driver of extinction; weakening critical habitat tools directly harms recovery prospects. FWS should restore the more balanced 2016 policy or adopt a stronger science-forward framework.

• I oppose changes to the Listing & Critical Habitat Rules (50 CFR Part 424)

Reinstating the 2019 rule moves ESA implementation backward, not forward. FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) should keep the 2024 improvements rather than revert to weaker, outdated language. The ESA requires using the best scientific and commercial data available; weakening listing criteria undermines that legal standard. Species threatened by climate change rely on future-oriented science, narrowing “foreseeable future” restricts the ability to act before collapse. Recovery often requires habitat beyond the small areas species currently occupy; restricting unoccupied critical habitat contradicts the purpose of the ESA.

Since its passage in 1973, this landmark act has prevented the extinction of roughly 300 species — and more than 99% of the species have been saved or are on their way to recovery. This incredible law has also protected millions of acres of forests, mountains, rivers, deserts, beaches, and oceans.

Protect the Endangered Species Act. Do not weaken it.  

Here’s what we know:

The Trump Administration is dismantling environmental protections and forcing legislation to sell our federal public lands to corporations and private interests.

Right now, the Trump Administration may issue a final rule removing protections for wolves and other species protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Trump administration’s proposed rule is to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” under the ESA. As part of its proposal, the Trump administration has signaled its intent to eliminate protections for the habitats of imperiled species. This move is in opposition to significant scientific evidence linking habitat loss to extinction — and in doing so ignores both Congress’ intent and the Supreme Court’s ruling on how to implement the law. Habitat loss due to human development is one of the primary reasons species become threatened or endangered. The current definition of “harm” under the ESA prohibits significant habitat modification that kills or injures ESA listed species by removing necessities such as food and shelter. In late 2020, the Trump administration tried to delist gray wolves in the contiguous United States, removing them from the ESA. However, this decision was later overturned by a federal court in 2022, and the gray wolf was relisted under the ESA.

Submit your comments by following the steps above today!