US wildlife official says endangered animals can be killed, so long as they aren't the target

The Trump administration's wildlife officials issued a new directive that expands on a rollback of the Endangered Species Act, weakening it to the point that the law might become meaningless.

The new directive could allow endangered animals to be killed during development, logging, and other projects as long as those deaths were not the intended outcome.

Communities that depend on healthy forests, wetlands, and coastlines for clean water, flood protection, recreation, and local jobs could feel the effects alongside the species already struggling in the industrialized world.

Here's what to know

According to Stateline, in September 2026, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik told agency staff that directly killing an endangered animal would violate the Endangered Species Act's ban on an illegal "take" only if the act was "intentionally directed at a particular animal or animals."

That stance builds on another Trump administration rule finalized earlier in 2026 that removed habitat destruction from the definition of "harm." Under that change, clearing forests or draining wetlands could be legal even if it pushed a species closer to extinction, as long as the work did not directly kill animals.

Nesvik's memo appears to expand upon that reasoning. The directive states, "A vessel that inadvertently strikes a whale has not taken it, because the vessel's course was not set against the whale." It also says, "Felling a tree is not a take of the bats roosting in it unless the tree is felled for the purpose of killing or capturing them."

Conservation advocates say Nesvik's interpretation would strip away much of the law's practical implementation. 

Brett Hartl, government affairs director with the Center for Biological Diversity, framed it this way: "Unless you're wearing a T-shirt that says, 'I'm here to draw the blood of endangered species,' you're basically off the hook."

More background

The Endangered Species Act has long required developers, industries, and government agencies to account for how their projects may affect vulnerable animals and plants. That could include environmental reviews, permit requirements, and project changes intended to reduce damage before it occurs.

If that framework is weakened, those reviews and changes could disappear, and people could start to feel the consequences. Habitat loss can worsen flooding, damage water quality, and reduce the resilience of landscapes that nearby communities rely on. Roads, subdivisions, and industrial projects built with less oversight could also intensify conflicts over public land use, outdoor recreation, and neighborhood safety.

Among former federal wildlife officials, the memo has drawn alarm. Chris Servheen, who spent 35 years as grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, warned that the change is "ridiculously extreme."

Speaking about how the changes could affect the Endangered Species Act, he pointed out, "It's essentially going to be a meaningless law, and it will have no protection whatsoever for species," he continued. "It's like taking the four wheels off your car and saying it's still your car."

Jane Davenport, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife, said the approach leans heavily on a dissent from late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a landmark 1995 case, even though the court's majority found that habitat destruction can qualify as harm under the law.

What's being done?

Stateline reported that a coalition of attorneys general, tribes, and environmental groups has already gone to court over the administration's Endangered Species Act rollbacks. Advocates expect the Nesvik memo to open another front in the ongoing legal fight, though it's too early to know whether that would involve separate lawsuits.

Ben Levitan, senior attorney with the biodiversity defense program at Earthjustice, said the guidance changes the earlier rule's meaning in a way the public was never told to expect.

"This is an incredibly sneaky and disingenuous way of going about things," he said.

Wildlife officials from Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wyoming filed public comments raising concerns about the proposal. The Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies also filed.

Proponents of the rollbacks say these changes allow states to impose their own rules. Critics argue that state wildlife agencies lack the legal authority, capacity, or expertise to stand in for federal oversight.

Kate Groetzinger, communications director with the Center for Western Priorities, said: "This basically is a blank check to companies, landowners, developers, loggers — anyone operating in endangered species habitat — to both destroy that habitat and kill the animals and literally face no consequences."

Where can I learn more?

This guidance is part of a push to weaken endangered species protections across habitats and industries. These articles look at related disputes over federal rollbacks, offshore drilling, state water decisions, and habitat damage.

• In the Gulf of Mexico, officials said companies can ignore protections during offshore drilling.

• Across Washington, the Trump administration proposed controversial changes to the Endangered Species Act earlier in 2026.

• Along the East Coast, federal officials withdrew a rule designed to protect North Atlantic right whales.

Get TCD's free newsletters for easy tips, smart advice, and a chance to earn $5,000 toward home upgrades. To see more stories like this one, change your Google preferences here.