The federal Endangered Species Act intends to protect vulnerable animal habitat from destruction, but in the hands of overzealous administrators, this law has quickly become a cudgel.
State Policy Network’s Center for Practical Federalism (CPF) is leading a coalition of 100+ state and local officials from 27 states in supporting the Trump administration’s proposed rule changes that restore a more common-sense, federalism-respecting approach to conservation.
This coalition recently submitted a formal public comment to the Department of Interior in support of the rule changes. You can read the public comment here.
“Federal agencies need to hear from state and local leaders about how federal actions impact their communities,” said Madison Ray, Senior Director for the Center for Practical Federalism at State Policy Network. “These coalition members know their states and communities best, and by elevating the voices of over 100 officials from 27 states, CPF ensures their expertise is heard.
“The feedback in this comment can help shape the final rule to restore the principles of federalism—empowering states and local communities to make conservation decisions that work for their unique circumstances rather than imposing one-size-fits-all federal mandates.”
How We Got Here
“Critical habitat” is supposed to be a targeted tool that protects specific ecosystems and the endangered species that live inside them. But over time, it has become one of the federal government’s most powerful ways to control land use inside the states. These designations make land far harder to develop or use productively, and they are often made with little regard for local priorities and the people who bear the costs.
Under early interpretations of the law, federal regulators could take a broad view of “critical habitat,” including sweeping designations that reach beyond areas a species actually occupies, leaving communities, landowners, and local economies stuck with the fallout while Washington, DC, makes the call.
In 2019, the first Trump administration finalized reforms aimed at restoring predictability and limiting this overreach. These rules required the government to consider both economic and conservation goals when deciding on critical habitat designations.
The Biden administration later reversed key elements of that approach in 2024, returning toward the more expansive regulatory posture. Now, the Trump administration is proposing to return to the earlier, more restrained framework.
CPF’s position is straightforward: States and local governments should be in the driver’s seat because they have the strongest interest in managing lands within their borders and the deepest knowledge of the tradeoffs. That’s what the new public comment seeks to get across.
Why This Matters
In communities where forestry, agriculture, and energy jobs sustain families, critical habitat designations can wipe out livelihoods without delivering conservation benefits that justify the damage.
CPF supports the proposed changes because they reestablish a practical standard. “Critical habitat” designations should be an extraordinary tool, and the Fish and Wildlife Service should do a robust, transparent economic analysis before it makes land less valuable through designation.
Just as important is how many state and local leaders chose to weigh in. Public comment dockets are usually dominated by Washington-based organizations, not the officials responsible for balancing conservation with jobs, housing, and local budgets. CPF helped make the process accessible, but the message comes from the signatories themselves: Conservation policy works best when it respects the role of states.
You can keep up with these efforts by subscribing to the Center for Practical Federalism’s Dispatch from DC newsletter.
