Late last month, the Trump administration proposed to roll back specific Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations that would, among other changes, severely limit the designation of critical habitat for species on the path to extinction.
While the move is being praised by some industry sectors, conservationists are alarmed about the future of many species in the Southwest – including the genetically vulnerable Mexican gray wolf.
What is critical habitat?
“Critical habitat” is a specially protected geographic area that has essential characteristics crucial to a species survival. This can range from water and food to specific features that promote reproductive success.
The Mexican wolf, as it currently stands, does not have a formal critical habitat designation that other species usually have.
Instead, the wolf is allowed to roam in a large geographic area called the “Mexican Wolf Experimental Recovery Area” that spans most of Arizona and New Mexico below Interstate 40 thanks to a broad set of rules that intentionally avoid the more standard habitat protections with a normal ESA listing.
In short, the government has not set aside specific habitat to be legally protected for the wolf’s recovery. It is extremely rare for a mammal like the lobo to lack a designated critical habitat.
What would the rule changes do?
Specifically, the four proposed regulations would alter existing rules within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to:
- Make it harder to protect habitat that a species doesn’t currently live in, even if a certain species might need it in the future due to warming temperatures or other environmental changes.
- Narrow the obligations federal agencies have when weighing their actions and how they could harm a species
- End automatic protections for threatened species under the “Blanket Rule."
- Make it easier to exclude land from habitat protections for economic reasons.
Back in 2019, the Trump administration made similar regulatory changes which were eventually challenged and later vacated by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The judge presiding over the case determined the rules failed to protect animals under the Endangered Species Act.
The newly reintroduced rule rollbacks are in addition to a separate proposal introduced earlier this year meant to constrain the ESA’s regulatory framework – revising the definition of “harm” to allow for logging, mining, and building in critical habitats.
In a statement, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the revisions are meant to end “years of legal confusion and regulatory overreach,” while “ensuring conservation efforts remain grounded in sound science and common sense.”
Conservation advocates like Joanna Zhang with WildEarth Guardians disagree. Zhang said that the rule changes are not based on science, and take away important safeguards for animals like the lobo.
“There should be checks on what we do to the environment around us, because humans aren't separate from nature,” Zhang told KUNM. “Cancer is the only other organism that just grows with unchecked speed, and we're doing the same thing.”
In 2024, the Mexican gray wolf reached a new milestone after the federal government estimated there were a minimum of 286 wolves on the landscape.
Brought back from the cusp of extinction, the wolf species was eventually reintroduced back into the Gila Wilderness in the 1990s after a recovery program bred just 7 founding members together. The inbreeding had lasting consequences, leaving behind a poor genetic pool that persists to this day.
Low genetic diversity is known to threaten the long-term survivability of a species by triggering widespread health issues, weakening immune systems, and hampering reproductive success.
And, as Zhang points out, the new rule revisions will make it significantly harder to expand the wolf’s recovery beyond the experimental population area to address the problem.
“They've been squished into a very small portion of their original habitat,” Zhang said. “So we need to be able to designate unoccupied, critical habitat for them to expand.”
In recent years, around five wolves wandered past the I-40 boundary to “disperse” or find a mate, a behavior that conservation groups say can help defeat the wolf’s ongoing genetic issues by intermingling with Northern packs.
Economic impacts to the cattle industry
On the other side of that coin, ranchers – who lose cattle to wolf depredations – want to shrink the area where lobos are allowed to roam, not expand it.
“Those affected by the Mexican gray wolves, especially those down in the southwestern part of the state, are at a huge disadvantage,” said Bronson Corn, president of the New Mexico Cattle Grower’s Association.
Corn, who advocates on the behalf of ranchers across the state, said that he and his members would vehemently oppose any expansion of the Mexican gray wolf recovery area or any habitat designations because they aren’t fairly compensated for livestock depredations.
The catalyst, Corn said, was an update to the evidentiary standards used by the federal government to dole out compensation to ranchers who reportedly lost livestock to wolves.
The largest change mandated evidence of subcutaneous hemorrhaging or heavy bleeding and bruising under the skin that’s often found in animals killed or attacked by a Mexican gray wolf.
“The problem with finding bruising is you have to find it within 18 to 24 hours after the death of an animal,” Corn said. “Plus, you're trying to find a single dead animal in a pasture that can be anywhere from 5,000 acres to 15,000 acres.”
Usually the government aims for a full economic loss reimbursement, but some ranchers have reported receiving 75% of an animal's value or payment delays. Corn said this system is made worse by having a high evidentiary bar, elevating tension within the agricultural community and conservationists.
Because of the broad and vague language used in the Trump administration's proposed ESA rule rollbacks, it is unclear if the economic impacts of livestock depredations will factor into any hypothetical future critical habitat designations for the wolf.
And it’s not just economic impacts that could have a say in the lobo’s future, according to advocates.
Zhang said other impacts could be weighed against the wolf, including those of “national security,” where the goal of genetic diversification could be hindered by a heavy national lab presence in New Mexico.
The Trump administration's rule changes are still up for public comment online until Dec. 22, 2025. To weigh-in, just search the docket numbers below.
- Listing and critical habitat - FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0039
- Interagency cooperation - FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0044
- Threatened species protections/“Blanket Rule” - FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0029
- Critical habitat economic exclusions - FWS–HQ–ES–2025–0048
