‘Death sentence’: Trump’s EPA to open habitats of endangered species to logging and mining 64%

By Gabrielle Canon0%

7/10/2026, 10:23:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 37.1% saturation with 342 hits. Analysis detected 2,324 faulty-reasoning hits from 923 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.2% and a BS Rank of 64% (8,075 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.10% of the article peer group.

Manatees touch snouts in the waters of the Three Sisters Springs wildlife refuge in Crystal River, Florida, on 4 February 2026. 
Photograph: Zoraida Diaz/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock 
‘Death sentence’: Trump’s EPA to open habitats of endangered species to logging and mining 
Habitat destruction strongest driver of species loss, with legislation keeping 99% of listed species from going extinct 
The Trump administration repealed a crucial part of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on Friday, finalizing a new rule that will open habitats of imperiled wildlife to development, logging, mining and other uses. 
For the last 50 years, the landmark environmental law included a broader understanding of the word “harm”, which ensured that not just the plants and animals themselves were protected but also the places that are critical to their survival. 
The inclusion of habitat in the “harm” definition was upheld by the supreme court in 1995, which ruled in support of old-growth forest protections relied on by endangered spotted owls. 
But despite widespread public support for a strong ESA  and hundreds of thousands of public comments submitted opposing the change  the Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce reframed the definition as “regulatory intrusion that interfered with private property rights” and announced it would be rescinded. 
Habitat destruction is considered the strongest driver of species loss . 
The legislation has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats, preventing 99% of those listed from going extinct, most famously the bald eagle. 
Experts fear the move could cause catastrophic damage to species already close to the brink. 
“For the first time ever, a presidential administration now claims that species protected by the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t be safe from habitat modification that destroys where they live, raise their young, or search for food,” Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles said in a statement. 
Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the plan would be “a death sentence for wolverines, monarch butterflies, Florida manatees and so many other animals and plants that desperately need our help”, when the proposal was first released last year. 
The erosion in regulations comes amid an extinction emergency , as the climate crisis adds new challenges to recovery. 
Roughly 1m species are threatened with extinction, according to a 2019 assessment from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), including roughly 40% of amphibians, and a third of reef-forming corals, marine mammals and sharks. 
Insects, considered the bedrock of biodiversity and the foundation of most ecosystems on Earth, are in rapid decline. 
About 80% of insect species have yet to be identified and some are disappearing before they can be named. 
Impacts to habitat can threaten a broader network of interconnected species and ecosystems. 
Landscape modification can trigger a devastating domino effect, where the loss of one species leads to the extinction of others that depend on it. 
The US public broadly supports species protections. 
A 2023 poll found that 80% of registered voters favored full-funding of the ESA and 73% view biodiversity as important to their everyday lives. 
But Trump administration officials claim the rules were changed to better align with what they believe is the original intent of the law. 
Accusing federal agencies of abusing the ESA to “obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses”, interior secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement that the protections “turned routine activity into a regulatory trap”. 
In the announcement, officials said “actions that directly injure or kill listed wildlife will continue to be prohibited”. 
But these rescinded rules are part of a broader deregulatory effort by Donald Trump , who has made it a priority to dismantle endangered species protections to boost energy extraction and industrial access, even in the US’s most sensitive and vulnerable natural areas. 
In March, the president convened the so-called “God squad”, named for its ability to decide a species’ fate, to expand oil and gas industry operations in the Gulf of Mexico . 
At the start of his second term, Trump appointed high-ranking federal officials to the group to come up with ways to sidestep ESA rules that create “obstacles to domestic energy infrastructure”. 
Advocates are already preparing to challenge the new interpretation of harm. 
“Let’s be clear: there is no support for the Trump Administration’s rule  no scientific support, no legal support, no public support,” Boyles said. 
“We will see the Trump Administration in court.” 
Contact us about this story 
The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know. 
If you have something to share on this subject, you can contact us confidentially using the following methods: 
Secure Messaging in the Guardian app 
The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. 
Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. 
This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said. 
If you don’t already have the Guardian app, download it ( iOS / Android ) and go to the menu. 
Select ‘Secure Messaging’. 
If you can safely use the tor network without being observed or monitored you can send messages and documents to the Guardian via our SecureDrop platform. 
Our guide at theguardian.com/tips lists several ways to contact us securely, and discusses the pros and cons of each. 
Explore more on these topics 
Trump administration 
Logging and land-clearing 
Mining (Environment) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.0%Gabrielle Canon: 3.7%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 1.4%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Gabrielle Canon: 4.9%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.6%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Gabrielle Canon: 0.6%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias2.2%This article: 8.9%Gabrielle Canon: 15.7%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect8.9%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 1.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Gabrielle Canon: 1.4%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias5.5%This article: 9.3%Gabrielle Canon: 6.8%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias9.3%This article: 37.1%Gabrielle Canon: 13.5%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias37.1%This article: 3.9%Gabrielle Canon: 0.4%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias3.9%This article: 2.5%Gabrielle Canon: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error2.5%This article: 3.4%Gabrielle Canon: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.3%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Gabrielle Canon: 1.2%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.3%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Gabrielle Canon: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.4%Gabrielle Canon: 7.3%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority6.4%This article: 2.6%Gabrielle Canon: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma2.6%This article: 2.6%Gabrielle Canon: 3.7%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope2.6%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.5%Gabrielle Canon: 6.0%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization14.5%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.9%Gabrielle Canon: 1.9%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon4.9%This article: 27.6%Gabrielle Canon: 13.0%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion27.6%This article: 2.6%Gabrielle Canon: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question2.6%This article: 5.6%Gabrielle Canon: 3.2%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.6%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.7%Gabrielle Canon: 1.3%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division2.7%This article: 2.1%Gabrielle Canon: 3.4%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal2.1%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.9%Gabrielle Canon: 1.9%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.9%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.3%Gabrielle Canon: 2.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote8.3%This article: 2.6%Gabrielle Canon: 3.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.6%This article: 31.2%Gabrielle Canon: 8.1%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice31.2%This article: 8.6%Gabrielle Canon: 1.4%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination8.6%This article: 15.1%Gabrielle Canon: 8.2%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias15.1%This article: 0.0%Gabrielle Canon: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 16.9%Gabrielle Canon: 1.8%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…16.9%

923 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers17%attributed speech764writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageKristen Boyles • 44 words • 100.0% coverageStephanie Kurose • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageDoug Burgum • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageKristen Boyles • 24 words • 100.0% coverageKristen Boyles • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kristen Boyles

89%flagged-word coverage
76 attributed words48% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Unattributed Quote+53.6 ptsWriter: 4.3%Kristen Boyles: 57.9%57.9%Biased Writer Voice-37.7 ptsWriter: 37.7%Kristen Boyles: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+31.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kristen Boyles: 31.6%31.6%Attempt to Sell a Product -20.4 ptsWriter: 20.4%Kristen Boyles: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-18.2 ptsWriter: 18.2%Kristen Boyles: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-10.3 ptsWriter: 10.3%Kristen Boyles: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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