Sen. Duff Signs National Letter Urging Federal Government to Withdraw Changes to Endangered Species Act

HARTFORD – Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwalk) signed onto a letter with several other state legislators from across the country to urge the federal government to withdraw proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The letter, addressed to U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Director of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Brian Nesvik, argues that four proposed changes to the ESA will strip key policies that have protected our nation’s wildlife and their habitats for decades.

“Our country enjoys some of the most diverse wildlife on the planet, from the New England coastline where I live, to rugged mountain ranges from Appalachia to the Sierra Nevada, to rich forestry in the Pacific Northwest and lush Hawaiian rainforests,” said Majority Leader Duff. “Our rich American landscape is under threat from climate change, overdevelopment, and resource mining, and these rules weaken our ability to protect the biodiversity that makes this country great.”

The letter argues that:

• The ESA has prevented the extinction of 99% of listed threatened and endangered species and has facilitated the recovery of iconic symbols of American heritage, such as the bald eagle, gray whale, bison, sea otter, and more.
• The ESA enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support among Americans, and a June 2025 poll shows that 84% believe it’s important to prevent species extinction, and that a majority favor habitat protections for imperiled species.
• These proposed changes will undermine state and federal cooperation in recovery efforts by weakening the partnership between the federal government and state agencies.
• These changes could cause economic harm, as endangered species offer economic benefits, including to tourism, modern medicine, agriculture, and recreation.

The legislators signed onto the letter opposing four specific proposed changes that would:

• Weaken Threatened Species Protections by rescinding the blanket 4(d) rule option and requiring that a species-specific rule is written. Threatened species would no longer be automatically protected from killing, harming, or habitat destruction. Instead, they would be vulnerable to weaker protections and face regulatory protection gaps.
• Exclude Areas from Critical Habitat Designation by requiring the Fish and Wildlife Service to consider economic impacts and follow a rigid process for critical habitat decisions. Such habitat is essential to the survival of endangered species. This new process would shift away from science-backed decisions while also reducing the size and effectiveness of critical habitat designations.
• Reduce Interagency Consultation by limiting the requirements for and the scope of instances in which federal agencies must consult each other to ensure their actions do not jeopardize listed species or destroy critical habitat. Under the proposed rule, it would be easier for federal agencies to overlook harmful impacts from pipelines, dams, mining approvals, grazing permits, and other federal actions.
• Remove Eligibility for New Critical Habitat Designation by making it harder to designate unoccupied critical habitat, narrowing the criteria for the term “foreseeable future,” and eliminating consideration of climate change impacts. This would make it significantly harder to protect species affected by drought, flooding, disease, and cumulative impacts.