Two administrations changed how the federal government applies the Endangered Species Act. The policies aren't identical, and pretending they are would ruin the test.
The headlines are still worth putting next to each other.
In March 2024, readers were told: "Biden administration restores threatened species protections dropped by Trump."
From the Associated Press:
The blanket protections rule had been dropped in 2019 as part of a suite of changes to the application of the species law under Trump that were encouraged by industry. Those changes came as extinctions accelerate globally due to habitat loss and other pressures.
Another rule issued Thursday clarifies that officials must decide if species merit threatened or endangered designations regardless of the potential economic costs of bestowing protections. That’s already government practice, but the 2019 Trump rules caused confusion because they removed an explicit directive to ignore economic impacts, said Fish and Wildlife Service Deputy Assistant Director Gina Shultz.
The story described President Joe Biden's administration as restoring rules protecting imperiled wildlife after the first Trump administration had rolled them back. Biden reinstated broader protections for threatened species and expanded how the government could designate critical habitat.
Now consider Friday's headline about President Donald Trump's administration: "Killing endangered wildlife is legal if they aren't the target, a new Trump rule says."
Killing endangered animals while logging a forest or building a dam would not be considered illegal unless the animals were specifically targeted, under a new interpretation of the Endangered Species Act by President Donald Trump’s administration that marks a sea change in how the landmark environmental law is enforced.
A directive sent to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees this week says imperiled animals or plants must be intentionally targeted for their killing to be considered illegal.
The opening immediately puts dead animals into the reader's mind. Logging a forest or building a dam could endanger wildlife without violating the law, the story explains, provided the animals weren't intentionally targeted.
The underlying policy dispute is legitimate.
Trump's Interior Department rescinded the federal regulatory definition of "harm," effective Sept. 14. For decades, that definition allowed significant habitat modification to qualify as an illegal "take" when it actually killed or injured protected animals. The administration argues the regulation expanded federal authority beyond what Congress wrote into the law.
Recommended: Washington Usually Regulates Hunters, but Trump Invited Them to Dinner
Environmental groups have a serious legal argument on the other side.
In 1995, the Supreme Court upheld the broader interpretation in Babbitt v. Sweet Home. The 6-3 majority concluded that "harm" could include habitat modification that foreseeably causes actual death or injury to protected wildlife. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, arguing that the statute's prohibition on a "take" should apply to conduct directed at animals themselves.
Trump's current interpretation is much closer to Scalia's position.
So the Referee Test isn't deciding today which interpretation of the Endangered Species Act should ultimately prevail. Courts will have plenty to say about that.
We're checking the vocabulary.
When Biden broadened federal wildlife regulation, the headline told readers he had "restored protections."
From the Associated Press:
Environmentalists expressed frustration that it took years for Democratic President Joe Biden to act on some of the Trump-era rollbacks. Stoking their urgency is the prospect of a new Republican administration following the 2024 election that could yet again ease protections.
When Trump narrowed federal wildlife regulation, readers were told that "killing endangered wildlife is legal."
Try swapping the language.
"Biden makes businesses liable when endangered wildlife dies during otherwise legal activity."
Or: "Trump restores narrower limits on Endangered Species Act enforcement."
Both would describe recognizable pieces of the underlying policies. Neither carries the emotional charge selected for the president on the other side.
Words like "restore" imply repairing something that was improperly damaged. Putting "killing endangered wildlife is legal" at the top of a story produces a very different reaction before readers encounter a single paragraph explaining the statutory dispute.
The Referee Test doesn't require softer coverage of Trump or harsher treatment of Biden.
It asks for the same whistle.
If one administration gets described through the protections it creates, the other deserves coverage that fairly explains the legal limits it's changing before the headline turns the policy into dead animals.
You decide which interpretation of the Endangered Species Act they prefer.
They shouldn't need to adjust for the headline before they get there.
Support independent conservative journalism and get 60% off PJ Media VIP with promo code FIGHT.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.