ESA Amendments Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/1897
Last Updated: July 16, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]

ID: W000821

Follow the money

The bill

ESA Amendments Act of 2025

HR. 1897, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$105,700 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Interior" section, p. 566-568 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest 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.

April 19, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

📍 Current Status

Next: The full House will vote on whether to pass the bill.

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The ESA Amendments Act of 2025 is a bill that promises to "optimize conservation" and "incentivize wildlife conservation on private lands." How quaint. How utterly predictable.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to gut the Endangered Species Act (ESA) under the guise of "streamlining" and "improving" it. The real objective is to appease corporate interests, particularly those in the fossil fuel, agriculture, and real estate development sectors, by reducing regulatory hurdles and allowing them to exploit natural resources with greater ease.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces a plethora of changes, including:

* Redefining key terms like "foreseeable future" and "habitat" to limit the scope of species protection * Exempting certain activities from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) * Creating new loopholes for private landowners to avoid conservation measures * Limiting the ability of citizens to challenge decisions made by federal agencies regarding endangered species

These changes are designed to undermine the effectiveness of the ESA and pave the way for increased exploitation of natural resources.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:

* Endangered species (obviously) * Private landowners and corporations seeking to exploit natural resources * Federal agencies responsible for enforcing the ESA, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service * Environmental organizations and advocacy groups * Indigenous communities whose lands and resources are often impacted by development projects

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is devastating. By weakening the ESA, it will:

* Accelerate species extinction and ecosystem degradation * Increase greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to climate change * Disproportionately harm indigenous communities and low-income populations who rely on natural resources for their livelihoods * Undermine the integrity of the scientific review process and allow politics to dictate conservation decisions

In short, this bill is a Trojan horse for corporate interests, disguised as a "conservation" measure. It's a cynical attempt to dismantle environmental protections and prioritize profits over people and the planet. How delightfully predictable. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch the slow-motion train wreck of American politics.

Related Topics

Wildlife & Endangered SpeciesClimate Change & SustainabilityWater & Air Quality Regulations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$105,700
25 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$105,700
Committees
$0
Individuals
$0

No PAC contributions found

1
PUEBLO OF LAGUNA
1 transaction
$8,300
2
CHICKASAW NATION
2 transactions
$6,600
3
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
2 transactions
$6,600
4
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
5
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
2 transactions
$6,600
6
SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
2 transactions
$6,600
7
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
1 transaction
$5,000
8
CHEROKEE NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
9
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
10
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
11
SNOQUALMIE TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,300
12
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION
1 transaction
$3,300
13
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
14
CATAWBA INDIAN NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
15
NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,300
16
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$3,300
17
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
18
ONEIDA NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
19
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
20
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
21
TULE RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL
1 transaction
$3,300
22
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
23
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
24
SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA
1 transaction
$3,300
25
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$3,300

No committee contributions found

No individual contributions found

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large]

ID: H001096

Top Contributors

10

1
COW CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationROSEBURG, OR
$5,000
Aug 6, 2024
2
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$3,700
Mar 4, 2024
3
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
4
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Nov 6, 2023
6
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationSHINGLE SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Dec 22, 2023
7
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Mar 29, 2024
8
HPUL PROJECT OPERATIONS
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Sep 6, 2024
9
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationAUBURN, WA
$3,300
Sep 6, 2024
10
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY OPERATIONS ACCOUNT
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Sep 13, 2024

Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8]

ID: S001212

Top Contributors

10

1
DEMOCRACY ENGINE INC
PACWASHINGTON, DC
$500
Jun 6, 2023
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
3
LEECH LAKE - PAC
OrganizationCASS LAKE, MN
$3,300
Dec 12, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Nov 13, 2023
5
GOOGLE
OrganizationMOUNTAIN VIEW, CA
$1,000
Feb 21, 2023
6
CHAIN BRIDGE BANK
OrganizationMCLEAN, VA
$25
Dec 6, 2023
7
ZOTTO, CARLA DEL
IndividualGLADEWATER, TX
$10,000
Aug 27, 2024
8
ANDERSON, ROLLIS
ANDERSON TRUCKING SERVICE INC. • CEO
IndividualSAINT CLOUD, MN
$9,900
Feb 8, 2024
9
FAISON, JAY
CLEARPATH • FOUNDER
IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC
$6,600
Jun 30, 2024
10
NYSTROM, BRIAN AND MARY ANN
NYSTROM & ASSOCIATES • PRESIDENT & CEO
IndividualANDOVER, MN
$6,600
Sep 27, 2024

Rep. Tiffany, Thomas P. [R-WI-7]

ID: T000165

Top Contributors

10

1
SOLBERG, TRYGVE A
SELF • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualMINOCQUA, WI
$13,200
Sep 30, 2023
2
SHANNON, JEAN L
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMILWAUKEE, WI
$13,200
Jul 27, 2023
3
NICKLAUS, GREG
INCREDIBLE BANK • VICE CHAIRMAN
IndividualARBOR VITAE, WI
$13,200
Mar 31, 2024
4
NICKLAUS, GREG
INCREDIBLE BANK • VICE CHAIRMAN
IndividualARBOR VITAE, WI
$13,200
Mar 31, 2024
5
BUHOLZER, RONALD
KLONDIKE CHEESE • PRESIDENT
IndividualMONROE, WI
$13,200
Jun 30, 2024
6
MAYER, SCOTT A
QPS EMPLOYMENT GROUP • CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
IndividualFRANKLIN, WI
$10,000
Feb 29, 2024
7
HILGEMANN, WILLIAM
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSTRATFORD, WI
$9,900
Jun 30, 2024
8
ZIETLOW, DONALD P
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualLA CROSSE, WI
$6,666
Jun 28, 2023
9
ALBEE, ALAN P
EAGLE WASTE AND RECYCLING INC • PRESIDENT
IndividualMINOCQUA, WI
$6,600
Aug 12, 2024
10
ALDRIDGE, KENNETH
SELF • EXECUTIVE
IndividualLIBERTYVILLE, IL
$6,600
Aug 3, 2023

Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9]

ID: G000565

Top Contributors

10

1
COLORADO RIVER INDIANS TRIBES
OrganizationPARKER, AZ
$2,000
Sep 21, 2023
2
COLORADO RIVER INDIANS TRIBES
OrganizationPARKER, AZ
$1,000
Jun 29, 2024
3
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Jul 19, 2023
4
SCHIRMER, SCOTT
M3 COMP • EXECUTIVE
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
May 20, 2024
5
SMITH, RYAN
SELF EMPLOYED • ENTREPRENEUR
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
May 20, 2024
6
SCHIRMER, SCOTT
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
Jun 5, 2024
7
SMITH, RYAN
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
Jun 5, 2024
8
TAPIA, DONALD
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualPARADISE VALLEY, AZ
$5,000
Aug 29, 2024
9
TAPIA, DONALD
IndividualPARADISE VALLEY, AZ
$5,000
Sep 9, 2024
10
O'KEEFFE, WILLIAM
SAFTI • PRESIDENT
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$5,000
Oct 23, 2024

Rep. Hurd, Jeff [R-CO-3]

ID: H001100

Top Contributors

10

1
OTERO COUNTY REPUBLICAN WOMEN
OrganizationLA JUNTA, CO
$2,000
Nov 22, 2024
2
GARY DOEHLING PC
OrganizationGRAND JUNCTION, CO
$2,000
Jan 22, 2024
3
MESA COUNTY REPUBLICAN MEN'S CLUB
OrganizationGRAND JUNCTION, CO
$500
Nov 22, 2024
4
DEARMAN CONSULTING LLC
OrganizationMEEKER, CO
$500
Feb 12, 2024
5
L BAR SLASH RANCH
OrganizationMEEKER, CO
$500
Feb 12, 2024
6
MONTEZUMA COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE
OrganizationCORTEZ, CO
$200
Oct 30, 2024
7
BENSON, BRUCE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualDENVER, CO
$5,000
Nov 1, 2024
8
ABBOTT, DEBRA
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMONTROSE, CO
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
9
ABBOTT, SARAH
IRELAND STAPLETON PRYOR AND PASCOE PC • LAWYER
IndividualMONTROSE, CO
$3,300
Sep 3, 2024
10
ABBOTT, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMONTROSE, CO
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024

Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4]

ID: N000189

Top Contributors

10

1
THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION
OrganizationNESPELEM, WA
$5,000
Sep 27, 2024
2
THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION
OrganizationNESPELEM, WA
$3,300
Oct 6, 2023
3
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$3,300
Jun 14, 2024
4
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Oct 29, 2024
5
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$2,900
Aug 11, 2023
6
SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY
OrganizationLA CONNER, WA
$2,000
Oct 22, 2024
7
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION
OrganizationOAKVILLE, WA
$2,000
Oct 1, 2024
8
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$1,000
Aug 30, 2023
9
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$400
Jun 14, 2024
10
FAISON, JAY W. MR.
CLEAN PATH ACTION FUND FOR CONSERVATIV • CEO
IndividualCHARLOTTE, NC
$11,600
Jul 24, 2023

Rep. Bentz, Cliff [R-OR-2]

ID: B000668

Top Contributors

10

1
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS
OrganizationSILETZ, OR
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
2
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
3
SAN PABLO LYTTON BAND OF POM INDIANS
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,300
Apr 9, 2024
4
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS
OrganizationSILETZ, OR
$3,300
Aug 1, 2023
5
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION
OrganizationNESPELEM, WA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
6
THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON
PARTNERSHIP
OrganizationMARYSVILLE, WA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
7
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS
OrganizationSILETZ, OR
$3,300
Sep 3, 2024
8
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION
OrganizationNESPELEM, WA
$3,300
Sep 26, 2024
9
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Sep 26, 2024
10
THE TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON
OrganizationTULALIP, WA
$3,300
Aug 19, 2024

Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]

ID: F000469

Top Contributors

10

1
ROBU, ELI
AJ GENERAL CONTRACTORS • CONSTRUCTION
IndividualWORLEY, ID
$3,300
Aug 4, 2024
2
SCOTT, JB
SELF EMPLOYED • REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER
IndividualBOISE, ID
$3,300
Apr 16, 2024
3
VANDERSLOOT, FRANK
MELALEUCA • CEO
IndividualIDAHO FALLS, ID
$3,300
May 1, 2024
4
TURLINGTON, SCOTT
TAMARACK RESORT • HOSPITALITY
IndividualTAMARACK, ID
$3,300
Apr 20, 2024
5
VANDERSLOOT, BELINDA
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualIDAHO FALLS, ID
$3,300
May 1, 2024
6
BENNETT, BRETT
BENNETT LUMBER • PRESIDENT
IndividualMOSCOW, ID
$3,300
Oct 28, 2023
7
WILLIAMS, LARRY
TREE TOP RANCHES • OWNER
IndividualBOISE, ID
$3,300
Feb 13, 2024
8
CENTERS, JAKE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMERIDIAN, ID
$3,300
Feb 15, 2024
9
ROOPE, CALEB
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES • CEO
IndividualEAGLE, ID
$3,300
Mar 4, 2024
10
ROOPE, CALEB
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES • CEO
IndividualEAGLE, ID
$3,300
Mar 4, 2024

Rep. Begich, Nicholas [R-AK-At Large]

ID: B001323

Top Contributors

10

1
LOKEN, TYLER
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$5,000
Oct 17, 2024
2
ODOM, WILLIAM L
ODOM CORP • VICE CHAIRMAN
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$5,000
Oct 26, 2024
3
ODOM, WILLIAM L
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$5,000
Oct 26, 2024
4
FOX, RICHARD
GMS LLC • MANAGER
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$3,435
Sep 4, 2024
5
GERONDALE, CHRISTOPHER
SELF
IndividualJUNEAU, AK
$3,300
Oct 16, 2023
6
GERONDALE, CHRISTOPHER
SELF
IndividualJUNEAU, AK
$3,300
Oct 16, 2023
7
MCNAMARA, MICHAEL
MICHAEL MCNAMARA • PHYSICIAN
IndividualANCHORAGE, AK
$3,300
Oct 25, 2023
8
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Nov 1, 2023
9
SCHWARZMAN, CHRISTINE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Nov 1, 2023
10
SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN
BLACKSTONE
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Oct 30, 2023

Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]

ID: E000235

Top Contributors

10

1
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC - ALEX HINSON, PARTNER AND CHIEF EXEC. OFFICER
OrganizationBIRMINGHAM, AL
$2,500
Nov 2, 2023
2
ALLY TELECOM GROUP LLC - PARTNERSHIP - MITCH KALIFEH
OrganizationMETAIRIE, LA
$2,500
Aug 30, 2023
3
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$1,000
Apr 25, 2023
4
GONC LTC, LLC
OrganizationJACKSON, MS
$1,000
Sep 14, 2023
5
STEED'S COLLISION CTR, LLC - LAURA STEED MANAGER
OrganizationBILOXI, MS
$1,000
Aug 30, 2023
6
WATKINS & EAGER PLLC - GRANT SELLERS, PARTNER
OrganizationJACKSON, MS
$1,000
Aug 30, 2023
7
TEN ONE STRATEGIES - JOHN HUGHES, MANAGING PARTNER
OrganizationJACKSON, MS
$500
Aug 25, 2023
8
GULF PRIDE COMPANIES, LLC - ERICH N. NICHOLS, MANAGER
OrganizationGULFPORT, MS
$250
Aug 30, 2023
9
WATKINS & EAGER PLLC - GRANT SELLERS, PARTNER
OrganizationJACKSON, MS
$250
Aug 25, 2023
10
DUNAGIN, MELINDA
DUNAGIN PEST SOLUTIONS • OFFICE MANAGER
IndividualHATTIESBURG, MS
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 98 nodes and 45 connections (89 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $172,900

Top Donors - Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

25 Orgs

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped, 11 harmed.

  • Section 506 expands exemption process eligibility under Section 7 of the ESA for agency actions that may violate subsection (a)(2) if a reasonable and prudent alternative would impair national security or result in significant adverse national or regional economic impacts. This streamlines permitting for federal projects, benefiting construction and engineering firms involved in such actions by reducing ESA-related delays and mitigation requirements.

  • Section 405 requires analysis of effects on human health and safety when determining endangered/threatened status, which could increase regulatory scrutiny and costs for hospitals/health systems if species protections impact facility operations or land use near medical facilities.

  • −Crop Producersconfidence 0.80

    Section 201's Conservation Benefit Agreements directly incentivize wildlife conservation on private lands, which could require crop producers to implement conservation measures that may restrict certain farming practices or land use.

  • Section 506 allows exemptions for agency actions where a reasonable and prudent alternative necessary to comply with ESA subsection (a)(2) may impair national security or cause significant adverse economic impacts. This could apply to energy infrastructure projects (e.g., pipelines, transmission lines) facing ESA consultations, reducing regulatory barriers and permitting delays.

  • Section 506's expansion of exemption eligibility under Section 7 for actions where reasonable and prudent alternatives may cause significant adverse national or regional economic impacts could benefit surface transportation projects (e.g., rail, highway) by streamlining ESA compliance and reducing mitigation requirements.

  • −Health Insuranceconfidence 0.70

    Section 405's mandated analysis of human health and safety effects could lead to stricter species protections that indirectly affect health insurance costs through potential healthcare access disruptions or increased medical service costs in affected areas.

+ 8 more industries not shown.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Industries this bill HARMS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of the Interior

Strong
Vector: 63%
Pages: 566-568AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HR 1897 aligns strongly with Project 2025's ESA reform goals by promoting transparency, prioritizing conservation resources, streamlining permitting, and increasing accountability—key themes emphasized in the policy document. Both seek to reduce perceived agency bias, improve decision-making, and balance species recovery with economic considerations."

Key themes:ESA reformtransparency and accountabilityresource prioritizationstreamlined permittingpublic access to data

— 533 — Department of the Interior order to fulfill the yet-unaltered congressional mandate contained in federal law, to provide for jobs and well-paying employment opportunities in rural Oregon, and to ameliorate the effects of wildfires, the new Administration must immedi- ately fulfill its responsibilities and manage the O&C lands for “permanent forest production” to ensure that the timber is “sold, cut, and removed.”79 NEPA Reforms. Congress never intended for the National Environmental Policy Act to grow into the tree-killing, project-dooming, decade-spanning mon- strosity that it has become. Instead, in 1970, Congress intended a short, succinct, timely presentation of information regarding major federal action that signifi- cantly affects the quality of the human environment so that decisionmakers can make informed decisions to benefit the American people. The Trump Administration adopted common-sense NEPA reform that must be restored immediately. Meanwhile, DOI should reinstate the secretarial orders adopted by the Trump Administration, such as placing time and page limits on NEPA documents and setting forth—on page one—the costs of the document itself. Meanwhile, the new Administration should call upon Congress to reform NEPA to meet its original goal. Consideration should be given, for example, to eliminat- ing judicial review of the adequacy of NEPA documents or the rectitude of NEPA decisions. This would allow Congress to engage in effective oversight of federal agencies when prudent. Settlement Transparency. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt required DOI to prominently display and provide open access to any and all litigation settlements into which DOI or its agencies entered, and any attorneys’ fees paid for ending the litigation.80 Biden’s DOI, aware that the settlements into which it planned to enter and the attorneys’ fees it was likely to pay would cause controversy, ended this policy.81 A new Administration should reinstate it. The Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act was intended to bring endangered and threatened species back from the brink of extinction and, when appropriate, to restore real habitat critical to the survival of the spe- cies. The act’s success rate, however, is dismal. Its greatest deficiency, according to one renowned expert, is “conflict of interest.”82 Specifically, the work of the Fish and Wildlife Service is the product of “species cartels” afflicted with group- think, confirmation bias, and a common desire to preserve the prestige, power, and appropriations of the agency that pays or employs them. For example, in one highly influential sage-grouse monograph, 41 percent of the authors were federal workers. The editor, a federal bureaucrat, had authored one-third of the paper.83 Meaningful reform of the Endangered Species Act requires that Congress take action to restore its original purpose and end its use to seize private prop- erty, prevent economic development, and interfere with the rights of states over their wildlife populations. In the meantime, a new Administration should take the following immediate action: — 534 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Delist the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystems and defend to the Supreme Court of the United States the agency’s fact-based decision to do so.84 l Delist the gray wolf in the lower 48 states in light of its full recovery under the ESA.85 l Cede to western states jurisdiction over the greater sage-grouse, recognizing the on-the-ground expertise of states and preventing use of the sage-grouse to interfere with public access to public land and economic activity. l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to end its abuse of Section 10(j) of the ESA by re-introducing so-called “experiment species” populations into areas that no longer qualify as habitat and lie outside the historic ranges of those species, which brings with it the full weight of the ESA in areas previously without federal government oversight.86 l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to design and implement an impartial conservation triage program by prioritizing the allocation of limited resources to maximize conservation returns, relative to the conservation goals, under a constrained budget.87 l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to make all data used in ESA decisions available to the public, with limited or no exceptions, to fulfill the public’s right to know and to prevent the agency’s previous opaque decision-making. l Abolish the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey and obtain necessary scientific research about species of concern from universities via competitive requests for proposals. l Direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to: (1) design and implement an Endangered Species Act program that ensures independent decision- making by ending reliance on so-called species specialists who have obvious self-interest, ideological bias, and land-use agendas; and (2) ensure conformity with the Information Quality Act.88 Office of Surface Mining. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA)89 to administer programs for controlling the impacts of surface coal mining operations. Although the coal industry is contracting, coal constitutes

Environmental Protection Agency

Moderate
Vector: 64%
Pages: 470-472AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on reforming the Endangered Species Act to improve transparency, streamline permitting, and incentivize private land conservation, which aligns with Project 2025's broader goals of increasing agency transparency, reducing regulatory burdens, and promoting science-based, accountable environmental governance—though it does not directly address EPA advisory committees or scientific integrity reforms highlighted in the policy."

Key themes:transparencyregulatory streamliningscience-based policyaccountabilityprivate-sector engagement

— 438 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and their membership has too often been handpicked to achieve certain politi- cal positions. In the Biden Administration, key EPA advisory committees were purged of balanced perspectives, geographic diversity, important regulatory and private-sector experience, and state, local, and tribal expertise. Contrary to con- gressional directives and recommendations from the GAO and intergovernmental associations, these moves eviscerated historic levels of participation on key com- mittees by state, local, and tribal members from 2017 to 2020. As a result, a variety of EPA regulations lack relevant scientific perspectives, increasing the risks of economic fallout and a failure of cooperative federalism. EPA also has repeatedly disregarded legal requirements regarding the role of these advisory committees and the scope of scientific advice on key regulations.46 Needed Science Policy Reforms Instead of allowing these efforts to be misused for scaremongering risk com- munications and enforcement activities, EPA should embrace so-called citizen science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny, especially in areas of data analysis, identification of scientific flaws, and research misconduct. In addition, EPA should: l Shift responsibility for evaluating misconduct away from its Office of Scientific Integrity, which has been overseen by environmental activists, and toward an independent body. l Work (including with Congress) to provide incentives similar to those under the False Claims Act47 for the public to identify scientific flaws and research misconduct, thereby saving taxpayers from having to bear the costs involved in expending unnecessary resources. l Avoid proprietary, black box models for key regulations. Nearly all major EPA regulations are based on nontransparent models for which the public lacks access or for which significant costs prevent the public from understanding agency analysis. l Reject precautionary default models and uncertainty factors. In the face of uncertainty around associations between certain pollutants and health or welfare endpoints, EPA’s heavy reliance on default assumptions like its low-dose, linear non-threshold model bake orders of magnitude of risk into key regulatory inputs and drive flawed and opaque decisions. Given the disproportionate economic impacts of top-down solutions, EPA should implement an approach that defaults to less restrictive regulatory outcomes. — 439 — Environmental Protection Agency l Refocus its research activities on accountable real-world examinations of the efficacy of its regulations with a heavy emphasis on characterizing and better understanding natural, background, international, and anthropogenic contributions for key pollutants. It should embrace concepts laid out in the 2018 “Back-to-Basics Process for Reviewing National Ambient Air Quality Standards” memo48 to ensure that any science and risk assessment for the NAAQS matches congressional direction. Legislative Reforms While some reforms can be achieved administratively (especially in areas where EPA clearly lacks congressional authorization for its activities), Congress should prioritize several EPA science activity reforms: l Use of the Congressional Review Act for Congress to disapprove of EPA regulations and other quasi-regulatory actions and prohibit “substantially similar” actions in the future. l Reform EPA’s Science Advisory Board and other advisory bodies to ensure independence, balance, transparency, and geographic diversity. l Build on recent bipartisan proposals to increase transparency for advisory bodies, subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act49 as well as recommendations from the Administrative Conference of the U.S., to strengthen provisions for independence, accountability, geographic diversity, turnover, and public participation. This should include a prohibition on peer review activities for unaccountable third parties that lack independence or application of these same principles to non- governmental peer review bodies (including NASEM). l Add teeth to long-standing executive orders, memoranda, recommendations, and other policies to require that EPA regulations are based on transparent, reproducible science as well as that the data and publications resulting from taxpayer-funded activities are made immediately available to the public. l Reject funds for programs that have not been authorized by Congress (like IRIS) as well as peer review activities that have not been authorized by Congress. l Revisit and repeal or reform outdated environmental statutes. A high priority should be the repeal or reform of the Global Change Research Act of 1990,50 which has been misused for political purposes.

Department of Agriculture

Moderate
Vector: 63%
Pages: 344-346AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill’s focus on incentivizing wildlife conservation on private lands and streamlining permitting aligns with USDA objectives to promote conservation incentives and reduce regulatory burdens on agricultural producers, though the primary scope differs (ESA vs. agriculture/food system)."

Key themes:private land conservation incentivesregulatory streamliningtransparency and accountabilitystakeholder collaboration

— 311 — Department of Agriculture ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/2023-usda-budget-summary.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 2. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System,” https://www.usda. gov/fst (accessed December 14, 2022). 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p.1. 4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “USDA Celebrates 150 Years,” https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/ history (accessed December 16, 2022). 5. The law stated, “[T]here is hereby established at the seat of government of the United States a Department of Agriculture, the general designs and duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.” Gladys L. Baker et al., Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) p. 13, https://babel. hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4254098&view=1up&seq=33 (accessed December 16, 2022). 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Summary, p. 2. 7. Ibid., p. 2. 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, p. 3, https://www.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/usda-fy-2022-2026-strategic-plan.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 9. News release, “USDA Announces Framework for Shoring Up the Food Supply Chain and Transforming the Food System to Be Fairer, More Competitive, More Resilient,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/06/01/usda-announces-framework-shoring-food-supply- chain-and-transforming (accessed December 14, 2022). 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Transforming the U.S. Food System.” 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022–2026, pp. 1–2. 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Background on the U.S. Approach to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit,” August 4, 2021, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Background-on-US-approach-2021-UN- Food-Systems-Summit.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “UN Food Systems Summit,” https://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainability/un- summit (accessed December 14, 2022). 14. Mark Bittman et al., “How a National Food Policy Could Save Millions of American Lives,” The Washington Post, November 7, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-a-national-food-policy-could- save-millions-of-american-lives/2014/11/07/89c55e16-637f-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html (accessed December 14, 2022); Daren Bakst and Gabriella Beaumont-Smith, “No, We Don’t Need to Transform the American Food System,” The Daily Signal, February 26, 2021, https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/02/26/ no-we-dont-need-to-transform-the-american-food-system/ (accessed December 14, 2022); and Daren Bakst, “Biden’s Food Conference Should Put People First, Not Environmental Extremism,” The Daily Signal, September 22, 2022, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/09/22/bidens-food-conference-should-put-people- first-not-environmental-extremism/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 15. News release, “USDA to Invest Up to $300 Million in New Organic Transition Initiative,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 22, 2022, https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/08/22/usda-invest-300- million-new-organic-transition-initiative (accessed December 14, 2022). 16. Gary Baise, “Sri Lanka’s Green New Deal Was a Disaster,” Farm Futures, November 14, 2022, https://www. farmprogress.com/commentary/sri-lankas-green-new-deal-was-disaster (accessed December 16, 2022). 17. See, for example, Catherine Greene et al., “Growing Organic Demand Provides High-Value Opportunities for Many Types of Producers,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, February 6, 2017, https://www. ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/growing-organic-demand-provides-high-value-opportunities- for-many-types-of-producers/#:~:text=ERS%20research%20shows%20that%20many,flavor%20desired%20 by%20the%20consumer (accessed December 14, 2022), and Andrea Carlson, “Investigating Retail Price Premiums for Organic Foods,” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 24, 2016, https://www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/may/investigating-retail-price-premiums-for-organic-foods/ (accessed December 16, 2022). Further, there are many myths, such as those regarding the alleged health benefit of organic food. One — 312 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise meta study found that “[t]he published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.” Crystal Smith-Spangler et al., “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 157, No. 5 (September 4, 2012), pp. 348–366, https:// www.acpjournals.org/doi/epdf/10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007 (accessed December 16, 2022). 18. Steve Savage, “USDA Data Confirm Organic Yields Significantly Lower Than With Conventional Farming,” Genetic Literacy Project, February 16, 2018, https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/16/usda-data-confirm- organic-yields-dramatically-lower-conventional-farming/ (accessed December 16, 2022). 19. See, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021, https://www.regulations. gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001 (accessed December 16, 2022). 20. Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law 117–169. 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Productivity Growth in U.S. Agriculture (1948–2019),” https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-productivity-in-the-u-s/productivity- growth-in-u-s-agriculture-1948-2019/ (accessed December 14, 2022). 22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, “Total Food Budget Share Increased from 9.4 Percent of Disposable Income to 10.3 Percent in 2021,” July 15, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76967 (accessed December 14, 2022). 23. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Quintiles of Income Before Taxes: Annual Expenditure Means, Shares, and Standard Errors, and Coefficients of Variation, Consumer Expenditure Surveys,” 2021, Table 1101, https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error/cu- income-quintiles-before-taxes-2021.pdf (accessed December 16, 2022), and Daren Bakst and Patrick Tyrrell, “Big Government Policies That Hurt the Poor and How to Address Them,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No.176, April 5, 2017, p. 7, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-04/SR176.pdf. 24. Daren Bakst and Joshua Sewell, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power and Rein in the USDA Slush Fund,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 6052, February 19, 2021, p. 2, https://www.heritage.org/ budget-and-spending/report/congress-should-stop-abrogating-its-spending-power-and-rein-the-usda. 25. Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act of 1948, Public Law 80–806. 26. Bakst and Sewall, “Congress Should Stop Abrogating Its Spending Power.” 27. Ibid., p. 3. 28. Daren Bakst, “Comment from Bakst, Darren” on “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program, Request for Comments,” USDA–2021–0010, October 21, 2021,” November 1, 2021, https://www. regulations.gov/document/USDA-2021-0010-0001/comment?filter=bakst (accessed December 16, 2022). 29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Notice: Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Partnership Program.” 30. Megan Stubbs, “The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC),” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated January 14, 2021, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44606 (accessed December 16, 2022). 31. “Overall, 34 percent of all farms reported receiving some type of Government payment in 2021,” and “[o]verall, 14 percent of U.S. farms participated in Federal crop insurance programs.” Christine Whitt, Noah Miller, and Ryan Olver, “America’s Farms and Ranches at a Glance: 2022 Edition,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, pp. 24 and 26, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/105388/eib-247. pdf?v=527.4 (accessed March 18, 2023). This data, which apparently does not cover crop insurance, included payments beyond just commodity payments, such as conservation payments. 32. Randy Schnepf, “Farm Safety-Net Payments Under the 2014 Farm Bill: Comparison by Program Crop,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, August 11, 2017, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44914.pdf (accessed December 14, 2022). 33. Although livestock and specialty crop producers do receive some subsidies, former American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman captured the subsidy issue well. He “dismisse[d] outright the claim that farmers couldn’t survive without subsidy money. ‘Why does the livestock industry survive without subsidies?’ he ask[ed]. ‘Why does the specialty crop [fruit and vegetable] industry survive?’” Tamar Haspel, “Why Do Taxpayers Subsidize Rich Farmers?” The Washington Post, March 15, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost. com/lifestyle/food/why-do-taxpayers-subsidize-rich-farmers/2018/03/15/50e89906-27b6-11e8-b79d- f3d931db7f68_story.html (accessed March 18, 2023).

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills