July Rollbacks Reshape Federal Wildlife Protections
Matthew Sultana '28 during his environmental science internship in the field this summer.
President Donald Trump's administration finalized several regulatory changes to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) in July, altering how the government protects endangered and threatened species and the habitats they depend on.
The changes came in two major rounds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service finalized a rule removing the federal regulatory definition of “harm” under the ESA, which was published July 14, 2026, and is scheduled to take effect Sept. 14, 2026. Previously, the definition included significant habitat modification or degradation that could kill or injure protected wildlife by impairing essential behavioral patterns.
The Department of the Interior said the change “is delivering the kind of common sense and accountability the American people voted for.” Officials argued that the previous interpretation went beyond the text of the ESA and created uncertainty for “landowners, small businesses, energy producers, farmers, ranchers and local governments.”
Environmental advocates, however, have raised concerns that removing the definition could weaken protections for habitats. The Harvard Environmental & Energy Law Program reported that the change removes a regulatory basis for protecting habitat relied upon by endangered and threatened species. Environmental groups filed lawsuits challenging the July 10 rule change shortly after it was finalized.
The administration made additional changes on July 17. The Fish and Wildlife Service eliminated future use of the “blanket rule” under Section 4(d) of the ESA. The rule had allowed newly listed threatened species to automatically receive many of the same protections given to endangered species.
Under the new system, future threatened species will “receive the protections tailored to the species’ individual conservation needs.”
The July 17 rule also revised the process for determining critical habitat. The agency said the new regulations clarify how it will consider economic impacts, national security and other relevant factors when deciding whether areas should be excluded from critical habitat designations.
For college students interested in environmental policy, the changes have created a complicated outlook for the future of conservation.
“It is definitely frustrating seeing so many environmental setbacks in the last few years, especially when it took so long to get them set up,” said Matthew Sultana ‘28, a Marist student studying environmental science. “But I am still looking forward to my career in environmental policy, and I feel like there is an opportunity to make a difference now more than ever.”
Sultana also noted that New York’s own environmental protections could limit the direct impact of the federal changes on students in the Hudson Valley.
Still, he believes students can become more engaged in conservation by experiencing local wildlife firsthand. He pointed to birdwatching and hiking opportunities around Poughkeepsie, as well as beavers at the Vassar Preserve, as examples of wildlife that students can encounter close to campus.
“Coming out and seeing all the different life around Marist will make a big difference in how you see wildlife,” Sultana said.
He also encouraged students to discuss the federal rollbacks with professors, friends and classmates.
“Discussion could be the beginning of a big change,” Sultana said.
As the federal government changes how the ESA is implemented, the debate over the balance between environmental protection, private property rights and economic development is likely to continue. For students entering environmental careers, the changes may present not only a challenge but also an opportunity to shape the next chapter of conservation policy.