Final signature count: 1,761

1,761 signatures toward our 30,000 goal

On September 14, 2026, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a directive that quietly but significantly weakened the Endangered Species Act. The change targets a foundational concept: what counts as "take" — the legal term for harm to a protected species. For 50 years, take included not just deliberate killing, but any foreseeable harm caused by human activity. That standard is now in question.^1,5

Under the new policy, unintentional killing of a protected species — what officials call "non-volitional take" — no longer automatically triggers ESA liability. In plain terms: if a company or individual didn't deliberately target a protected animal, the death may no longer be treated as a legal violation.^1,5

Why This Standard Existed in the First Place

Endangered species are almost never killed on purpose. They die from pollution, habitat loss, and industrial activity — from the predictable consequences of decisions made without accounting for their presence. The ESA's take prohibition was written broadly for exactly that reason. It required developers, energy companies, and federal agencies to plan around protected wildlife even when harm wasn't intentional. The legal obligation to anticipate foreseeable harm was the mechanism that prevented it.

Strip that obligation away, and the incentive to mitigate disappears with it. Every infrastructure project, every land development, every energy operation that overlaps with critical habitat is affected. More than 1,300 species in the United States are currently listed as threatened or endangered. They live at the margins — and policies that reduce accountability for their deaths, even accidental ones, push them closer to extinction.

This Directive Is Part of a Larger Pattern

The September 14 change didn't arrive in isolation. Since the start of the current administration, federal protections for imperiled wildlife have faced a sustained series of rollbacks.² In July 2026, the administration reversed a rule protecting critical habitat from development — a rule that had been in place for half a century.³ Earlier, the administration moved to eliminate automatic protections for threatened species, a category that had historically received safeguards nearly identical to those covering endangered ones.⁶

Each change, on its own, gets framed as regulatory streamlining. Together, they dismantle the legal framework that helped bring the bald eagle and the gray wolf back from the brink.

States Are Challenging These Rollbacks in Court

A coalition of states has already filed suit against the federal government over the ESA rollbacks, arguing the changes violate both the statute and the public interest.⁴ The litigation reflects a broader concern: that directives of this magnitude are bypassing the regulatory process that normally governs changes to federal law.

The September 14 directive can be rescinded. The Secretary of the Interior has the authority to direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to restore the original standard. That standard protected wildlife for generations — and it can again.

Sign the petition now to urge the Secretary of the Interior to rescind the September 14 directive and restore full legal accountability for foreseeable harm to endangered and threatened species.