The Endangered Species Act Under Threat: Why It Still Matters for Birds

Editorial statement

The Ornithologist is a non-partisan publication. Our editorial focus is on birds, ecology, and conservation outcomes. We do not endorse political parties, candidates, or electoral campaigns.

This article is republished because it addresses conservation implications associated with the Endangered Species Act. The views and phrasing expressed are those of the author and do not represent an editorial position of The Ornithologist.

Readers are encouraged to engage with the ecological evidence, species-level impacts, and practical conservation considerations presented.

Fifty-two years ago yesterday, President Richard Nixon signed into law the most important wildlife protection legislation in the world. I am not one for American chest beating, but arguably the Endangered Species Act remains the pinnacle of effectiveness and power when it comes to protecting the most fragile species in our midst.

Earlier in 1973, 92 senators and 355 representatives overwhelmingly supported the Act before it reached the president’s desk for signature. Fifty-two years later, the law – and the 2,140 species it protects – are in the greatest fights of their lives, facing threats from Congress, the president and, very likely, the Supreme Court.

Over the past month, hundreds of groups under the umbrella of the Endangered Species Coalition have led efforts to amass 400,000 public comments opposing four proposed changes to this seminal law by the Trump Administration. Only thirty days were granted, with the comment period opening just before Thanksgiving and closing three days ahead of Christmas. The intent was clear: make it complicated, allow little time for feedback, and push it through while Americans were preoccupied with other priorities.

At the same time, a bill in the House sailed out of committee and passed a full House vote to delist Gray Wolves, sending them down a path toward renewed persecution. The bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate, but it is important to note that House Republicans in the New York City metropolitan area – including LaLota, Malliotakis, Garbarino, Smith, Kean and Lawler – sided with far-right representatives such as Boebert and Hageman in the West. Voters in their purple districts would do well to remember this come November.

*Urban beaches can still support vulnerable species when long-term stewardship and community engagement are taken seriously. © Chris Allieri*

The Endangered Species Act works, having saved 99% of the species under its protection from extinction. From California Condors to Whooping Cranes – and, of course, the Piping Plover – nearly 90 bird species are currently listed as threatened or endangered, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Dozens of imperilled bird species are afforded ESA protections in Hawai‘i alone, where habitat destruction and the spread of avian malaria continue to drive declines, underscoring how much work remains for species such as the ʻAkikiki and the ʻAkekeʻe. None of this progress, however, will continue under an administration and political movement hell-bent on dismantling existing safeguards.

Attacks on the ESA are fundamentally out of step with public opinion. Nine out of ten Americans support the law. People love wildlife, and they support wildlife protection. They also respond instinctively to the underdog – to the defence of the most vulnerable among us.

In a coalition press release, I said that “radicals across all branches of the federal government are looking to strip our bedrock environmental and wildlife protection laws of their power and potency, and we won’t stand for it. This isn’t the will of the people. It’s unscientific, unfounded and unethical. The Endangered Species Act works and needs no amendments. This is a last-minute rush to destroy wildlife and push fragile species toward extinction at the eleventh hour of 2025.”

If not for the Endangered Species Act, I know the Piping Plover would be in a far worse position than its already precarious status today. The ESA is the forcing mechanism behind plover protection across our city, state and nation. Without it, agencies and landowners are simply not compelled to act. Piping Plovers from Maine to Florida, North Dakota to Texas, and Michigan to Massachusetts depend on a strong ESA. Weakening it would erase years of dedicated recovery efforts and stewardship programmes.

Many hundreds of species, however, do not benefit from focused projects like the NYC Plover Project or from legions of committed volunteers. Here’s to the tiny fish, freshwater mussels, delicate plants and other organisms that fall outside everyday human conversation. They are no less deserving of protection than the plover.

The Trump Administration’s redefinition of “harm” under the ESA is also expected imminently, once again timed for when public attention is elsewhere. Despite a public comment period earlier this spring, the USFWS is set to rescind the current definition, allowing extensive habitat destruction while narrowing ESA protections to actions that directly kill or injure listed species. Legal challenges are inevitable.

All of this may feel overwhelming – by design. But we cannot give up on the Piping Plover, the Grizzly Bear, the Gray Wolf or the Florida Manatee. As I said in a 15 December interview with The Revelator: “What would the plover want us to do? The plover would want us to fight like hell. That’s what we have to do right now.”

The Ornithologist Academy

Understanding the Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act (ESA), enacted in 1973, is widely regarded as one of the strongest wildlife protection laws ever passed. Its core purpose is simple but far-reaching: to prevent species from going extinct and to recover populations to the point where legal protection is no longer required.

Species can be listed under the ESA as endangered (at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range) or threatened (likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future). Importantly, listing decisions are based on scientific evidence rather than economic or political considerations.

One of the ESA’s most influential mechanisms is its protection of habitat. The law recognises that species decline is often driven not by direct killing, but by the gradual loss or degradation of breeding, feeding, and migratory environments. As a result, the ESA can restrict activities that significantly damage designated critical habitat, even if no individual animal is immediately harmed.

For birds, this habitat-based approach has been especially important. From wide-ranging species such as condors and cranes to highly site-faithful birds like plovers, ESA protections have forced land managers and agencies to account for nesting sites, disturbance, and seasonal sensitivity in their decisions.

The Act also requires federal agencies to consult wildlife authorities before undertaking projects that could affect listed species. This process does not automatically halt development, but it does ensure that impacts are assessed and, where possible, avoided or mitigated.

While often discussed in political terms, the ESA’s lasting significance lies in its structure. It embeds the precautionary principle into law, prioritises long-term ecological persistence over short-term gain, and treats extinction as an unacceptable outcome. For many bird species with narrow ranges or specialised habitats, this framework has been the difference between survival and disappearance.