States Sue Trump Administration Over Changes to Endangered Species Protections

Some of the rules protecting endangered and threatened species across the U.S. are changing, and a group of attorneys general is trying to stop it. Twenty states and Washington, D.C., filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration on Sept. 9.

The cases challenge three Endangered Species Act rules finalized earlier this summer. They deal with habitat, newly threatened species and even the meaning of the word “harm.”

California, Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington are leading the lawsuits. Michigan is part of the group too, along with New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin and several other states.

Federal wildlife officials say the changes bring the rules closer to the actual wording of the Endangered Species Act. The states say they could leave animals, plants and the places they depend on with fewer protections.

Why the lawsuit includes the word ‘Harm’

Embedded media follows. Please allow a moment for it to load.

President Trump is illegally weakening three key protections of the Endangered Species Act — opening the door to further species decline and possible extinctions.

We’re suing.

We’re fighting to protect all those who share this planet with us. https://t.co/r17j44udef

— Rob Bonta (@AGRobBonta) September 9, 2026

One of the biggest changes involves something that might sound pretty simple. For decades, the federal definition of harming a protected animal has included seriously damaging its habitat when that damage actually kills or injures wildlife.

That definition ends Sept. 14. In the lawsuit, the attorneys general point to things like destroying breeding or feeding areas and draining water sources as examples of habitat damage that could be affected.

The Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service say directly killing or injuring protected wildlife will still be prohibited.

Threatened Species Are Getting a Different Approach

Another change applies when a species is added to the threatened list in the future. Those species will no longer automatically get certain protections that generally apply to endangered wildlife.

Fish and Wildlife can instead make a separate rule based on what that particular species needs. This change doesn’t remove protections current threatened species already have.

Critical Habitat Is Changing Too

The final rule in the lawsuit involves critical habitat. These are areas considered important to conserving threatened and endangered species.

The new rule changes how Fish and Wildlife weighs factors like economic and national security impacts when deciding whether to leave land out of a critical habitat designation. The administration says the changes will make the process clearer for landowners and businesses.

The attorneys general want a federal judge to throw out all three rules. Both cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.