HR-1897 — ESA Amendments Act of 2025

YourVoice.Now Summary

EnvironmentCorporate BenefitsCivil LibertiesCriminal Justice & Due ProcessTransparency & Accountability

Eases Endangered Species Act land and permit rules, and caps lawsuit fees at $200,000 per case.

Environment

State control over recovery — states may petition to replace federal rules

A state could send in its own recovery plan for a threatened species. The agency would have 120 days to answer. An approved plan becomes the federal rule in that state.

Regulated killing or capture of species — allowed at the agency's choice

The law now allows killing or trapping a listed species only in rare cases. It must be a case where crowding cannot be eased another way. The bill would let the Interior Secretary allow it at any time.

Trade in foreign endangered animals — allowed under treaty rules alone

A listed animal that is not native to the U.S. could cross the border with no federal permit. The rules of the CITES wildlife treaty would have to be met. Permits to sell or ship such animals would face a looser test.

Deadline to protect a new species — 12 months becomes a 5-year plan

Today the agency must answer a listing request within 12 months. The bill would swap that for a five-year work plan. The plan ranks species by need. Low-ranked ones could wait five more years.

Protected habitat on private land — barred where a land plan already exists

Private land could not be named critical habitat if a land plan already covers it. The plan must be one the agency thinks will help the species hold steady or grow.

Rules protecting a threatened species — must ease as recovery goals are met

The agency would set step-by-step recovery goals for each threatened species. As each goal is met, the rule must get weaker. A willing state can then take over.

Harms counted in project reviews — distant or delayed effects left out

In a project review, the agency could count only harms the project itself is likely to cause. Harms far off in time or distance would not count. Neither would harms reached through a long chain of causes.

Marine mammal approval in permits — separate sign-off no longer required

A permit that allows harm to a whale or seal now needs a second approval. That approval comes under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The bill would drop it, along with the safety steps tied to it.

Public environmental review of harm permits — no longer required

A permit that lets a project harm a few animals of a listed species would no longer be a major federal action. That drops the impact study and the public comment step.

Corporate Benefits

Exemption route for blocked projects — economic harm now qualifies

A project stopped by wildlife rules can ask a cabinet-level board to exempt it. The bill adds two new grounds. The fix would hurt national security, or cost the country or a region a lot.

Guarantees for landowners and firms — no new limits after a deal

Once a permit is approved, the Interior Secretary could not ask the holder to do more. That holds in any other federal, state, or local process. A deal signed before a species is listed makes the same promise.

Cost of required project changes — agency must favor the cheapest option

When a project would harm a listed species, the agency suggests other ways to do it. Those options must work and cost the owner as little as possible.

Civil Liberties

Court review of wildlife opinions — new path, 150-day filing limit

Anyone could challenge a federal wildlife opinion in the D.C. appeals court. The case must be filed within 150 days of the opinion.

Ability to sue over wildlife rules — legal fees now capped per case

A court could not award more than $125 an hour for lawyer and expert fees. The total is capped at $200,000 per case. Only people worth under $2 million can collect. Groups must be worth under $7 million with 500 or fewer staff.

Fee awards for frequent filers — cut off after three claims a year

A party that has sought fees in three or more cases in the past year could not collect. Co-plaintiffs are counted together. A group cannot split a case to qualify.

Court challenge to dropping a species — blocked for at least five years

After a species is taken off the list, the law requires at least five years of watching. During that time no one could ask a court to review the choice to remove it.

Criminal Justice & Due Process

Federal ban on harming threatened species — applies only if states adopt it

Some states have a wildlife deal with the federal government. In those states, a federal rule for a threatened species would count only if the state adopts it. Rules for endangered species do not change.

Transparency & Accountability

Public database of lawsuit costs — updated monthly, names each plaintiff

A public database would show what the government spends on wildlife lawsuits. That covers staff time, settlements, and fee awards. It would be updated each month and name the cases and who sued.

Reasons behind protection decisions — science and cost studies posted online

The agency would post online the science behind each listing and habitat choice. Proposed habitat rules would also come with public cost studies. Those studies name the areas the agency thought about leaving out.

Landowner conservation deal records — closed to public records requests

Papers a landowner files for one of these deals would be kept private. Under the bill they are exempt from the open records law. The public could not get them.

Some state wildlife data — kept offline at a state's request

A state can say its own law bars release of data used in a federal choice. The agency must then keep that data off the public site. Exact species locations stay hidden too.

More about this bill

Most households would notice no direct cost change from this bill. The effects land on people who own or use land where at-risk wildlife lives. The bill would rewrite the Endangered Species Act and rename it the Endangered Species Recovery Act. Federal rules that shield a threatened species would have to ease as the species recovers. States could ask to run their own recovery plan in place of the federal one. The bill would fund the law at about $288 million a year through 2031. Land rules would loosen. The government could not name private land as protected habitat if a land plan already covers the species there. Landowners, states, counties, and tribes could sign a Conservation Benefit Agreement before a species is listed. In return, they would face no new limits if it is listed later. Permits that allow some harm to wildlife would skip public environmental review. Deadlines to act on a request to list a species would give way to a five-year work plan. Project reviews would count fewer harms. Harms that are far off in time, far away, or linked by a long chain could not be counted. Wildlife agencies could no longer make a builder repair or offset the harm a permit allows. A project could win an exemption if the fix would hurt the economy or national security. Sea life like whales and seals would lose a separate approval step the law now requires. Suing to enforce the law would get harder. A court could not award more than $125 an hour, or $200,000 in all, for a case. Only smaller groups and people could collect at all, and frequent filers would be cut off. A choice to drop a species from the list could not be taken to court for five years. The bill also adds new openness. It would put the science behind each decision online and start a public database of what the lawsuits cost.

Congressional Summary

This bill reauthorizes through FY2031 the Endangered Species Act and generally narrows protections provided under the act.The bill directs the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to submit a National Listing Work Plan that establishes a five-year schedule and plan for addressing listing of endangered or threatened species and designation of critical habitats for such species. Under the plan, the bill gives the Services flexibility on the timing of acting on listing petitions and eliminates the requirement for the Services to act within 12 months on listing petitions.The bill limits what land may be designated as critical habitat for an endangered or threatened species. It also limits protections provided to threatened species and allows a state to regulate the recovery of such species if the Services determine the state's proposed recovery strategy would conserve the species.The bill provides statutory authority for Conservation Benefit Agreements, which allow private landowners to voluntarily enter agreements to reduce threats to candidate species in exchange for being allowed to continue their operations if the species is later listed. The bill also modifies the permitting process for certain other voluntary conservation agreements, including by exempting incidental take permits (e.g., permits to harm or kill a species) from environmental review requirements.The bill also makes a variety of other changes to the act, including limiting consultation requirements, judicial review, and awards for attorneys’ fees in certain cases.

Legislative Subjects

Administrative law and regulatory proceduresCivil actions and liabilityCongressional oversightDepartment of the InteriorEndangered and threatened speciesEnvironmental assessment, monitoring, researchGovernment ethics and transparency, public corruptionGovernment information and archivesJudicial review and appealsPublic participation and lobbyingPublic-private cooperationState and local government operationsWildlife conservation and habitat protection

Details

Congress: 119th
Chamber: House
Status: summarized
Action: Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1189 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4690, H. Res. 1182, H.R. 1897 and H.R. 5587. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4690, H. Res. 1182, H.R. 1897, and H.R. 5587 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate on each measure. The resolution provides for one motion to recommit on H.R. 4690, H.R. 1897, and H.R. 5587.
Action Date: 2026-04-20
Date Added: 2026-04-21
Source: Congress.gov →

Like reading a bill in plain English?

We're building an app that does this for every bill in Congress and lets you tell your reps how you want them to vote. We're a small team getting ready to launch, and we're trying to show investors that real people want this. Be one of them. Help us get it built. Leave your email and we'll tell you the moment the app is ready.