disapproval of esa harm definition rule

Full Title:
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration relating to "Rescinding the Definition of 'Harm' Under the Endangered Species Act".

Summary#

This joint resolution would overturn a rule the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration submitted called “Rescinding the Definition of ‘Harm’ Under the Endangered Species Act.” The resolution says that rule “shall have no force or effect,” which would stop that rule from applying. It uses congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code.

  • Main change: invalidates the agency rule at 91 Fed. Reg. 43300 (July 14, 2026) that would have removed the agencies’ definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
  • Who acts: the resolution was introduced in the Senate by Senators Adam Schiff and Sheldon Whitehouse and referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  • Policy goal: the resolution aims to prevent the change that would remove the definition of “harm” from the ESA rule text.
  • What is unclear: the resolution does not explain how the agencies should proceed afterward, or whether any prior regulatory text is automatically restored.

What it means for you#

  • Federal agencies (USFWS and NOAA): If the resolution becomes law, the agencies’ submitted rule would not take effect. The agencies could not rely on that rescission to change how “harm” is defined, at least while the resolution is in force.
  • People and businesses regulated under the ESA: This would likely keep the existing regulatory definition of “harm” in place rather than removing that definition. That could affect how certain activities are reviewed or limited under the ESA.
  • Conservation groups and land users: This would probably preserve the current regulatory framework used to determine whether actions harm protected species. The practical effect on any specific project or permit would depend on how “harm” has been applied in agency practice.
  • General public: The resolution itself is about a regulatory technical change. Its direct effect on most people would be limited unless they are involved in projects or actions regulated under the ESA.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text and accompanying material provided do not include a fiscal note, budget estimate, or other cost information.
  • It is not clear from the material whether congressional action would cause administrative, legal, or enforcement costs for agencies or outside parties.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to stop the agencies from removing the regulatory definition of “harm” under the ESA.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that keeping the existing definition maintains current protections and legal clarity about what counts as harm to listed species.
  • Supporters may see this as preserving the status quo while Congress or the agencies consider any longer-term changes.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the resolution prevents the agencies from making the change they proposed and could limit agency flexibility to update rules.
  • The resolution does not say what the agencies should replace the rescinded rule with, so it may leave legal or implementation questions unanswered.
  • It is unclear from the text whether rejecting this specific rule would lead to further legal or administrative actions, such as new rulemaking or litigation, and whether that could create extra costs or delays.