Trump administration is changing Endangered Species Act. How will it affect US wildlife? 8%

By Laerke Christensen12%

7/24/2026, 4:07:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 13.9% saturation with 106 hits. Analysis detected 896 faulty-reasoning hits from 764 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 24% and a BS Rank of 8% (20,319 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 92.80% of the article peer group.

In July 2026, a claim (archived) circulated online that the administration of U.S. 
President Donald Trump "legalized the hunting and killing of  animals formerly protected under the Endangered Species Act." 
For example, a Facebook page shared the claim alongside a list of 20 species it claimed had lost protections through the Trump administration's changes to the act. 
The claim and the list of species also circulated elsewhere on Facebook (archived), Instagram (archived), Threads (archived) and X (archived). 
Snopes readers contacted us to learn more about it. 
The specific claim that the Trump administration's changes to the Endangered Species Act would allow the "hunting and killing" of 20 named species was misleading and lacked context. 
The Trump administration did outline three changes to the Endangered Species Act in July 2026, some of which critics warned could amount to a "death sentence" for animals that were awaiting classification because the changes weakened protections for threatened and endangered animals and their habitats. 
The changes did not outright legalize hunting threatened or endangered animals. 
The Department of the Interior wrote on July 10, 2026, that "actions that directly injure or kill listed wildlife will continue to be prohibited." 
Critics of the changes feared that removing legal protections for threatened or endangered species' habitats would eventually kill the animals anyway. 
The 20 species named in the Facebook post were relevant to the proposed changes because, although they aren't classified as of this writing, they might soon become eligible to receive threatened or endangered classifications. 
While social media posts claimed the animals lost Endangered Species Act protections, this was only true compared with animals classified before the Trump administration's rule changes would take effect in August and September 2026. 
At the time of this writing, because the Fish and Wildlife Service had not classified the listed species, the act provided them no protections. 
Considering that the effects of the Trump administration's changes to the Endangered Species Act remained to be seen at the time of this writing, we leave this claim unrated. 
Trump admin rescinds 'harm' from act On July 10, the Department of the Interior announced it would rescind the definition of "harm" from the Endangered Species Act. 
Before the department's change, harming an endangered animal included modifying or degrading its habitat in a way that caused the animal death or injury and was prohibited under the U.S. 
Code. 
According to the conservation organization World Wide Fund for Nature, habitat loss poses "probably the greatest threat" to species diversity on the planet. 
According to the organization, 85% of threatened or endangered species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's "Red List" have habitat loss identified as the main threat to their existence. 
(The IUCN is a global environment network made of both government and civil organizations.) 
The Center for Biological Diversity, a charity working to protect endangered species, said in a news release on July 10 that rescinding the definition of harm from the Endangered Species Act was, "a cynical attempt to open species' habitats to logging, mining, oil and gas drilling and other destruction." 
Burgum said in a news release that the department's change "restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed." 
'Blanket rules' are out On July 17, the Interior Department announced two more changes, the first of which was that it would eliminate "blanket" rules, also known as Section 4(d) rules, that meant species classified as threatened generally received the same protections as endangered species. 
After the Trump administration's changes to Section 4(d) rules, the Fish and Wildlife Service must list species-specific protections for species classified as threatened based on what level of protection the agency deems "necessary and advisable." 
The Center for Biological Diversity suggested in a news release that the new rules gave undue weight to corporations and landowners, who could exclude areas from becoming critical habitats by claiming they would suffer economic loss. 
What's next The three changes to the Endangered Species Act were due to take effect in August and September 2026, though they were not without opposition. 
On July 21, lawyers for several conservation groups that included the Center for Biological Diversity announced the groups would sue the Trump administration over the two rule changes announced on July 17. 
The center also was one of several groups that sued the Trump administration over the July 10 rule change. 
For further reading, Snopes previously investigated how one of the Trump administration's changes would affect the whooping crane. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.7%Laerke Christensen: 2.2%Snopes: 2.4%Confirmation Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.9%Snopes: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Laerke Christensen: 2.6%Snopes: 3.4%Availability Heuristic4.3%This article: 4.1%Laerke Christensen: 1.3%Snopes: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic4.1%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Laerke Christensen: 1.7%Snopes: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias3.8%This article: 3.7%Laerke Christensen: 2.2%Snopes: 2.4%Framing Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.1%Laerke Christensen: 0.7%Snopes: 0.5%Status Quo Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.9%Snopes: 0.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Laerke Christensen: 0.4%Snopes: 0.4%Pessimism Bias8.6%This article: 11.1%Laerke Christensen: 4.4%Snopes: 5.1%Negativity Bias11.1%This article: 3.7%Laerke Christensen: 0.4%Snopes: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.4%Snopes: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.2%Snopes: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.5%Snopes: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.1%Laerke Christensen: 1.9%Snopes: 1.5%Recency Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.3%Snopes: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 1.3%Snopes: 1.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.5%Snopes: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.9%Laerke Christensen: 6.2%Snopes: 6.0%Appeal to Authority13.9%This article: 3.4%Laerke Christensen: 2.1%Snopes: 0.9%False Dilemma3.4%This article: 2.7%Laerke Christensen: 0.7%Snopes: 0.6%Slippery Slope2.7%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 4.0%Snopes: 3.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.7%Snopes: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.2%Laerke Christensen: 0.7%Snopes: 1.5%Bandwagon6.2%This article: 12.3%Laerke Christensen: 3.7%Snopes: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion12.3%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.6%Snopes: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 1.6%Snopes: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.5%Snopes: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.9%Snopes: 1.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.6%Snopes: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.3%Snopes: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.9%Snopes: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 1.8%Snopes: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.2%Snopes: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.5%Snopes: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 2.0%Snopes: 3.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.4%Laerke Christensen: 1.8%Snopes: 2.3%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 7.1%Laerke Christensen: 2.2%Snopes: 2.5%Biased Writer Voice7.1%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.1%Snopes: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 11.1%Laerke Christensen: 0.6%Snopes: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias11.1%This article: 3.7%Laerke Christensen: 0.6%Snopes: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.7%This article: 2.4%Laerke Christensen: 0.4%Snopes: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.4%

764 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers25%attributed speech573writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of the Interior • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWorld Wide Fund for Nature • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWorld Wide Fund for Nature • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageCenter for Biological Diversity • 49 words • 100.0% coverageBurgum • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageCenter for Biological Diversity • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Burgum

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words15% of attributed speech44% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Burgum: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.4 ptsWriter: 9.4%Burgum: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Burgum: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Burgum: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.