This legislation would amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to optimize conservation through resource prioritization, incentivize wildlife conservation on private lands, provide for greater incentives to recover listed species, create greater transparency and accountability in recovering listed species, streamline the permitting process, eliminate barriers to conservation, and restore congressional intent.

The Trump administration has attempted to narrow the focus of the law, as it did during the president's first term. In April it proposed rescinding decades-old language that counts habitat modification as harmful to a listed species.

Industries are advocating for interpretations of environmental regulations that speed up the project permitting process. They are also hoping Congress will codify the Trump administration’s endangered species changes as part of its permitting overhaul, removing a source of friction and policy reversals over the past several administrations. 

After the first Trump administration made changes in 2020 that limited the law, the Biden administration finalized rules to ensure the law could adapt as more species face threats from a changing climate. Republicans in Congress challenged President Joe Biden’s rules with legislation to nullify them, but they didn't have enough votes to override a veto.

In Favor

"For the sake of both the environment and the economy, Congress must advance common sense Endangered Species Act (ESA) reforms that return power to private landowners while simultaneously protecting endangered species in a responsible way. Weaponization of the ESA and its morass of red tape are impeding our ability to move forward on vital land management practices and even building important and necessary infrastructure, all in the name of environmental activism that’s actually doing more environmental harm than good. That is why I was proud to introduce the Endangered Species Act Amendments Act of 2025.

"My bill, the ESA Amendments Act of 2025, will implement necessary measures to take the power away from litigious environmental activist groups who openly profit off weaponizing species management and instead give more responsibilities to state, local, and tribal governments who often times have a much better understanding of the species, their needs, and their habitats. As Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, it is my duty to lead on this issue, and it is immensely important that Congress passes this legislation which will restore commonsense to the species management process and ensure America’s rich, abundant wildlife thrives for generations to come," said bill sponsor Rep. Westerman, Bruce (R-AR).

H.R.1897 represents a thoughtful modernization of the Endangered Species Act that seeks to enhance conservation outcomes by aligning regulatory processes with real-world priorities. The bill would explicitly incentivize private land stewardship, allowing landowners to enter into candidate conservation agreements and offering regulatory certainty so they can invest in long-term recovery without fearing new restrictions down the road. By prioritizing resources through a national listing work plan, the legislation helps federal agencies focus on species most in need, rather than spreading limited capacity too thin. The bill also increases transparency and accountability: it requires publishing the scientific basis for listing decisions and performing economic, security, and impact analyses when designating critical habitat.  

Against

H.R.1897 represents a dangerous rollback of core protections under the Endangered Species Act by weakening scientific safeguards, undermining federal oversight, and opening the door to increased exploitation of imperiled species. By broadening the definition of “best scientific data” to allow more input from state, county, or tribal governments, the bill risks prioritizing politically or economically motivated data over rigorous, peer-reviewed science.  It also shifts authority from federal agencies to states and private landowners—even for species that remain listed—eroding the centralized role the ESA was designed to play in preventing extinction.

The bill further introduces procedural barriers: limiting court review during the post-listing monitoring period, capping attorney fees, and reducing the powers of consultation to require only “reasonably certain” effects, which collectively weaken the ability to enforce protections. These changes risk allowing habitat degradation, overdevelopment, or regulatory capture to go unchecked, and could undermine decades of species recovery work. Defenders of Wildlife warn that the bill “would eviscerate the Endangered Species Act … and push imperiled species to extinction.” At a time of accelerating biodiversity loss, this legislation shifts the balance away from science and preservation toward short-term economic interests—and could jeopardize the long-term survival of vulnerable species.  

Should Congress pass H.R.1897, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Amendments Act?