Abstract The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a hallmark policy aimed at species and habitat conservation through practices of regulation and ecosystem management. Since its passing in 1973, the legislation has made significant strides in preserving endangered species and potentially leading to eventual recovery. The policy remains relevant in the modern day by guiding federal agencies and public projects. However, there are significant problems and loopholes present, such as lack of efforts in species recovery, abuse of the land conservation approach, and socioeconomic impacts which need to be re-examined. It can be expected that competent reforms to incentives, transparency, and strategies employed by the governing body U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This paper seeks to encompass these aspects through research and provide critical analysis of the policy. Introduction Ecosystem management has become a vital process for environmental conservation and restoration in the context of political and socioeconomic realities. This approach focuses on ecological sustainability and resource management which attempts to limit the devastating impact of human society on nature and prevent further consequences for future generations. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of hallmark and key legislations passed for ecosystem management in the United States. It provides regulations for federal agencies in all sectors to consider conservation of threatened wildlife. Despite the importance and significant impact of ESA, the policy is inherently flawed and remains criticized by experts who emphasize the need for an overhaul of the legislation. History and Background The ESA was passed in 1973 under the legal designation 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. Led by Nixon’s administration to meet international requirements and improve very inefficient species preservation laws, the ESA became an iconic policy and program for the conservation of threatened and endangered wildlife and flora. The ESA is implemented and enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. The ESA is continuously updated to keep track of listings of endangered species. Under this policy, any federal agency and many private institutions need to cooperate with the FWS and NOAA to ensure their actions or projects, including any authorization, funding, or participation do not adversely affect any listed species. This includes aspects such as the destruction, transfer, or “taking” (commonly interpreted as habitat destruction) of endangered species or wildlife (the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2017). The ESA has always been a political struggle. In 1978, the legislation had its biggest victory when the court upheld a decision to halt the construction of the tremendous dam in the Tennessee Valley Authority project when small fish were identified as endangered. This led to the amendment of the law which upheld the preservation of species by conservation of land at practically any cost. However, to prevent large projects from being derailed in the future, Congress also made it significantly more difficult to add new species, which was practically halted