Federal Agencies Propose Sweeping Revisions to Endangered Species Act Regulations, Largely Reinstating 2019–2020 Framework

On November 19, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services) released four proposed rules that would comprehensively revise key federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations governing listing decisions, critical habitat designations, interagency consultation, and “take” protections for threatened species. The rules would largely restore the 2019 and 2020 regulatory framework adopted during the prior Trump administration — policies that were rolled back in 2024 by the Biden Administration.

According to the Department of the Interior’s official announcement, the proposal is intended to “strengthen certainty” for regulated entities, streamline decision-making, and allow the Services to “better weigh the real-world impacts” of ESA regulatory actions. However, many environmental groups consider the proposed rules as a significant step toward weakening federal wildlife protections and elevating economic considerations over habitat conservation.

The Services opened a 30-day comment period beginning November 21, 2025.

Below is a summary of the four rules as proposed:

1. Listing, Delisting & Critical Habitat Determinations (50 C.F.R. Part 424)

The Services propose to revert 50 C.F.R. Part 424 to the prior 2019 rule, which fundamentally alters how species are listed and how critical habitat is designated. The proposed rule:

• • Revives the Two-Step Analysis for Designating Unoccupied Critical Habitat. As proposed, critical habitat outside of the species’ current range may only be designated if (1) occupied areas are inadequate, and (2) the unoccupied area is essential for conservation. This standard is considerably narrower than the 2024 rule.
  • Allows Federal Consideration of Economic Impacts. The 2024 rule prohibits economic considerations in listing decisions. The proposed rule expressly allows the Services to consider (but not base decisions solely on) economic impacts, including impacts to energy production, housing and infrastructure costs, and local economic effects.
  • Restricts the “Foreseeable Future” Standard. Listing a species as threatened would require evidence that future threats and species’ responses to said threats are likely to occur — not merely possible or anticipated.

2. Expanded Discretion to Exclude Critical Habitat (50 C.F.R. § 17.4(b)(2))

The Services proposal would also revise Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA to reinstate the 2020 critical habitat exclusion rule, requiring the Services to consider economic impacts, national security impacts and “any other relevant impact” when designating an area as critical habitat (potentially including, for example, impacts to housing production, energy grid or water supply reliability, infrastructure development, and the like). The Services could exclude critical habitat if the benefits of doing so outweigh inclusion, unless exclusion will result in species extinction.

3. Interagency Consultation Revisions (50 C.F.R. Part 402)

The proposed rule would restore and reinstate the pre-2024 interagency consultation framework, including definitions of “effects of the action,” “environmental baseline,” and the scope of “discretionary federal actions.” It would also remove the 2024 compensatory mitigation (offset) provisions, which expressly authorize compensatory mitigation for unavoidable incidental take.

4. Eliminating the “Blanket 4(d) Rule” for Threatened Species (50 C.F.R. Part 17, § 4(d))

Finally, the Services propose to eliminate the ESA’s section 4(d) “blanket rule” that automatically extends endangered-level protections to all threatened species. Instead, protections would be species-specific, and new 4(d) rules may be proposed on a case-by-case basis. Until and unless the Services issue new species-specific rules, existing blanket provisions remain in place.

POTENTIAL Implications

At this early stage, it is difficult to foretell the full extent of potential implications from the Services’ proposed rules. At a minimum, project proponents and regulated entities should evaluate whether the proposed rules may reduce federal constraints on upcoming projects, particularly those requiring Section 7 consultation or federal permits or approvals, which may see reduced mitigation requirements or delays. Entities with large infrastructure or development projects may want to consider submitting public comments within the stated 30-day window to address project-specific impacts, needs for clear implementation guidance (particularly for projects involving newly threatened species and 4(d) implications), and economic or operational consequences.

In addition, as discussed in our previous legal alert, the recent passage of California’s Assembly Bill 1319, which creates provisional candidate protections under the California ESA for species facing reduced federal ESA safeguards, could result in the imposition of stricter state protections (including avoidance/minimization measures and compensatory mitigation) for certain species than exists under federal law if the proposed rules are ultimately adopted.

Next Steps

The Services are accepting public comments to the proposed rules through December 21, 2025. Comments may be submitted through the federal portal linked on the Department of the Interior’s website.

Allen Matkins will continue tracking the progress of the proposed rules and provide subsequent legal updates as the rulemaking process develops. For more information regarding the Services’ proposed rules or how they may affect your project, please contact the Allen Matkins land use and natural resources team.