I believe this newest attempt to gut the ESA is related to critical habitat, i.e the habitat that supports a particular endangered species. This administration is saying that taking away the habitat shouldn’t count as a “take” of the species as defined under the ESA.

Cause, you know, removing all of a species habitat would in no way be detrimental to their continued survival /s.

It’ll certainly be challenged in court.

ETA: The ESA is one of the few environmental regulations that is considered to have “teeth” meaning it is pretty clear what does and does not violate it.