A coordinated wave of litigation is sweeping across federal courts as environmental groups challenge the Trump administration's sweeping changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and related environmental protections. At the heart of the legal battle is a controversial redefinition of the word 'harm' in the ESA, which critics say will gut protections for imperiled species and open the door to expanded oil and gas drilling, logging, and pesticide use.

The 'Harm' Rule Change: A New Legal Battleground

In August 2019, the Trump administration finalized a rule that narrows the definition of 'harm' under the ESA, effectively limiting what constitutes prohibited harm to endangered species. Previously, 'harm' included significant habitat modification that actually kills or injures wildlife. The new rule restricts 'harm' to direct physical injury, excluding habitat destruction that could lead to species decline. This change has sparked immediate lawsuits from major environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Center for Biological Diversity. 'This is a fundamental gutting of the Endangered Species Act,' said Rebecca Riley, legal director for NRDC's nature program. 'The administration is trying to make it easier for industry to destroy critical habitat without consequence.'

'God Squad' Exempts Gulf Oil Industry from Species Rules

One of the most contentious actions involves the so-called 'God Squad'—a cabinet-level committee authorized to exempt federal actions from ESA requirements. In October 2020, the committee voted to exempt the entire Gulf of Mexico oil and gas industry from protecting the critically endangered Rice's whale (formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale), of which only about 60 individuals remain. Environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, swiftly sued, arguing that the exemption violates the ESA and could push the whale to extinction. 'This is a death sentence for the Rice's whale,' said Kristen Monsell, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. 'The God Squad has never before exempted an entire industry across an entire region.' The decision also drew international attention, with the BBC calling it an 'unprecedented waiver.'

BP's Gulf Project and Other Drilling Controversies

Separately, climate groups have sued the U.S. government over its approval of BP's new deepwater project in the Gulf of Mexico, arguing that the environmental review failed to account for climate impacts. The lawsuit, filed by Earthjustice on behalf of several groups, contends that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) violated the National Environmental Policy Act. Meanwhile, the Trump administration's broader push to expand offshore drilling has also faced legal challenges from Oregon tribes seeking to stop a wind energy auction off their coast, and from Nantucket residents challenging permits for the Vineyard Wind project. These cases highlight the tension between renewable energy development and environmental protection.

Beyond the Gulf: Lawsuits Targeting Logging, Pesticides, and Nuclear Power

The legal onslaught extends far beyond the Gulf. In Oregon, environmentalists are suing to halt a massive logging project in the Elliott State Forest, which they say threatens the imperiled marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl. The Trump administration has proposed opening up millions of acres of national forests to logging, reversing decades of protections. In the Midwest, groups have filed suit to stop the restart of the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan, citing safety concerns and potential harm to aquatic species in Lake Michigan. And in Florida, environmentalists are challenging the state's takeover of federal wetland permitting authority, arguing that it will lead to more pollution and habitat loss.

Pesticide Approvals Under Fire

Two major lawsuits target the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its approval of toxic herbicides. The Center for Food Safety and other groups sued the EPA over the registration of dicamba, a herbicide known to drift and damage crops, as well as harm endangered species. Another lawsuit challenges the EPA's approval of the insecticide chlorpyrifos, which has been linked to brain damage in children. 'The EPA is ignoring its duty to protect endangered species and public health,' said Amy van Saun, senior attorney at the Center for Food Safety. 'These pesticides are causing widespread harm, and the agency is looking the other way.'

Monarch Butterflies and Other Species at Risk

The Center for Biological Diversity has also launched a lawsuit seeking ESA protection for monarch butterflies, whose population has declined by more than 90% over the past two decades. The suit argues that the Fish and Wildlife Service has failed to make a timely decision on listing the species. 'The monarch butterfly is in freefall, and the administration is doing nothing to stop it,' said Tierra Curry, a senior scientist at the center. Other lawsuits target the administration's failure to protect Hawaii's imperiled plants and animals, and even the unique case of endangered lizards on Jeffrey Epstein's island in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Broader Implications and the 'Generational' Setback

The New York Times has described these legal challenges as part of a 'generational' setback for environmental protections. The Trump administration has also repealed the EPA's landmark finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health—a move that could unravel climate regulations. Business leaders have expressed concern about the uncertainty created by these rollbacks. 'The administration is creating a regulatory environment that is both anti-environment and anti-business,' said a former EPA official. 'Companies need stability, not a whiplash of lawsuits.'

The House 2026 budget proposal further guts environmental protections, slashing funding for the EPA and other agencies. Meanwhile, legal academics and environmental groups in New Zealand and elsewhere are warning governments against blocking climate court claims, as investor-state dispute settlements could lead to billion-dollar lawsuits against countries that pass green laws.

What's Next?

With the election approaching, the fate of these lawsuits hangs in the balance. A Biden administration would likely reverse many of the Trump-era rules, but the legal challenges will continue regardless. The courts will play a crucial role in determining the scope of the ESA and the future of American environmental policy. As the litigation tracker from Just Security shows, over 100 environmental lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration—a testament to the deep polarization over the nation's environmental laws.

In the words of the late environmentalist David Brower, 'We don't inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.' The current wave of lawsuits is a fight to ensure that debt is not too high.