When an endangered bird migrates across America, it will no longer be guaranteed a home to come back to. Its habitat could be destroyed at any time, and the place where the very species we are trying to protect and repopulate lives and depends on will be gone. On Sept. 14, a new ruling by the Trump Administration went into effect, rolling back key protections on the Endangered Species Act. While threatened and endangered animals may still have laws that protect them from being directly hurt, by changing the definition of “harm” to exclude destruction of habitat, it seems that these animals are not actually being protected.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a push within Oregon to start taking better care of the Earth and protecting the environment. The country was facing widespread habitat destruction, industrialization, and chemical pollution.
“I remember what the Willamette River used to look like,” South science teacher Julia Harvey recalled. “At that time there was a kind of national movement to start protecting the environment.”
The Endangered Species Act was passed and put into place in 1973, creating necessary protections for all threatened and endangered animals within the United States. Since then, the Endangered Species Act has helped to repopulate species all across America. A major example is the rise of the Bald Eagle. Dangerous pesticides, such as DDT, were spread over its prey’s food which caused the Bald Eagle’s egg shells to become fragile as the chemicals worked their way up the food chain. The eggs would get crushed under the bird’s weight. This caused a rapid decline in the population of the Bald Eagle, until the Endangered Species Act went into place allowing them to repopulate and become abundant once again.
“I grew up in Eugene and never saw a single Bald Eagle growing up,” Harvey remembered. “Now, they’re everywhere. It’s crazy how plentiful they are now; it shows a real success story of the use of the Endangered Species Act.”
This isn’t the first time the current administration has taken steps towards breaking down environmental protections. For example, in the 2026 Federal budget plan, the Trump Administration proposed cutting more than $1 billion in funds to the National Park Service. Congress rejected the proposal, maintaining higher funding levels for parks. However, if they hadn’t, the outcome could’ve been drastic. Had the proposed budget gone into effect, National Parks could’ve experienced closure and offloading, even larger staffing cuts, and infrastructure and preservation setbacks. And the effects of the budget wouldn’t just affect the parks and staff, it could have also had a huge impact on the towns around them, which rely on tourism to support their economy. In turn, the budget might have accomplished the opposite of what it was attempting to do, by causing an economic crisis in these communities.
It’s no secret that environmental protections can take a toll on the economy. However, many argue that the economy is less important than the lives of other species, while others try to search for a middle ground. As it turns out, a step towards compromise already exists. Harvey explained that “In Southern California, where they have a large amount of highways, they developed a huge overpass that connects habitats so species can cross over. This helps to cut down on habitat fragmentation.” By doing this, the state is able to maintain biodiversity and support endangered species, while still being able to progress with the rest of the country.
There is a fine balance between progression within society and environmental cruelty. But the question is, has the Trump Administration crossed it?
Article by Noa Gitelson