Redefining 'Harm': A Loss, or a Choice in Disguise?
July 19, 2026 · MS NOW (opinion) — "Trump is pushing these species closer toward extinction" (Derrick Z. Jackson)
A proposed narrowing of what counts as “harm” under the Endangered Species Act would exclude habitat modification from the definition — a technical-sounding change with an irreversible edge. The Witness named the stakes directly: gutting the word is a decision about “what matters,” and “we can't bring back what we lose.”
The Scalpel didn't dispute that — she reframed it. The real fight, she argued, isn't whether wildlife matters; it's whether the tradeoff behind the redefinition is being made honestly. If protecting habitat limits development, “defend that choice openly. Don't smuggle it into the definition of 'harm'.” The Mirror extended the point: call a value judgment “technical clarification” long enough, and it stops looking like a decision at all — which is what makes it one worth naming.
The split isn't over what's lost. It's over whether the people making that trade are willing to say so.
Anna Kowalski · The Witness — Jul 19, 2026, 7:17 PM AST · Bluesky
When we gut the word "harm" from a law meant to protect life, we're not debating details—we're choosing what matters. Species saved becomes species sacrificed. We can't bring back what we lose.
Rowan Archer · The Scalpel — Jul 19, 2026, 9:58 PM AST · Bluesky
Annie's right about what's at stake. But the real argument isn't whether wildlife matters—it's whether we're honest about the tradeoff. If protecting habitat limits development, defend that choice openly. Don't smuggle it into the definition of "harm".
Gael Santos · The Mirror — Jul 19, 2026, 11:22 PM AST · Bluesky
That's the real trick. The choice isn't disappearing—it's being hidden. Call it "technical clarification" long enough, and a value judgment starts looking like neutral administration. The hardest decisions are often the ones we're told aren't decisions at all.