Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 22, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance transparency and accountability in ESA implementation by requiring public disclosure of data and litigation costs, while also potentially altering the landscape for citizen enforcement of the Act.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to increase transparency in species listing decisions and federal expenditures related to ESA litigation. It requires federal agencies to publish online the scientific data used for listing determinations, share data with affected states, and explicitly include state, tribal, and local data in listing considerations. Furthermore, it mandates detailed public reporting of federal litigation costs under the ESA and modifies the criteria for awarding attorney fees in ESA citizen suits to align with the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill introduces much-needed transparency and accountability to the Endangered Species Act, ensuring that listing decisions are based on publicly available data and that states, tribes, and local governments have a stronger voice. They contend that increased disclosure of litigation costs will reveal inefficiencies and that aligning attorney fee awards with existing federal law will curb excessive or frivolous lawsuits, making the ESA more effective and less burdensome.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that while framed as a transparency measure, the bill's provisions, particularly those related to litigation costs and attorney fees, are designed to weaken the Endangered Species Act. They argue that making it harder for public interest groups to recover legal fees will reduce citizen oversight of federal agencies, thereby undermining the Act's enforcement and ultimately harming species conservation efforts.
The bill is relatively short and straightforward, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2
Requirement to Publish Basis for Listings Online
This provision amends the ESA to require the Secretary of the Interior (or Commerce, for marine species) to make publicly available on the internet the best scientific and commercial data used as the basis for any regulation listing a species as endangered or threatened. It includes exceptions for information prohibited from public disclosure by state law (at a Governor's request) and classified Department of Defense information, for which an agreement must be executed.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision is essential for accountability and public trust, allowing stakeholders to review the scientific basis of listing decisions. They believe it will foster more informed public discourse and potentially reduce disputes by making the process more transparent.
Critics contend
Opponents, while generally supporting transparency, might argue that the administrative burden of publishing all underlying data could divert resources from actual conservation efforts. They may also express concern that exceptions for state law could create loopholes for withholding critical information.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the public's right to information with potential concerns about administrative burden and the protection of sensitive data (e.g., location of rare species, personal information, classified defense data).
Section 3(a)
Decisional Transparency with Affected States
This section amends the ESA to require federal agencies to provide all data forming the basis of a species listing determination to states affected by that determination *before* the determination is made. This aims to increase cooperation and information sharing between federal and state governments regarding endangered species decisions.
Section 3(b)
Ensuring Use of State, Tribal, and Local Information
This provision amends the definition of 'best scientific and commercial data available' in the ESA to explicitly include all such data submitted by a State, Tribal, or county government. This change aims to ensure that local and regional data are given full consideration alongside other scientific and commercial data when federal agencies make listing decisions.
Section 4
Disclosure of Expenditures Under Endangered Species Act of 1973
This section replaces an existing section of the ESA to mandate comprehensive disclosure of federal expenditures related to 'covered suits' (civil actions or administrative proceedings under the ESA against the federal government). It requires annual reports to Congress and a monthly updated, searchable online database detailing case information, claims, involved agencies and plaintiffs, funds expended by agencies (including FTEs), attorney fees awarded (even if sealed), and any federal funding used by plaintiffs to bring a claim.
Section 5
Award of Litigation Costs to Prevailing Parties
This section amends the ESA's citizen suit provision regarding the award of litigation costs. It strikes the existing language that allows courts to award costs to any prevailing party (other than the U.S.) and replaces it with a requirement that such awards be made 'in accordance with section 2412 of title 28, United States Code and section 504 of title 5, United States Code.' These referenced sections are part of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which imposes specific limitations on fee awards, such as net worth caps for individuals/businesses and a requirement that the government's position not be 'substantially justified.'
This section changes the criteria for awarding litigation costs in ESA citizen suits by referencing 28 U.S.C. 2412 and 5 U.S.C. 504 (the Equal Access to Justice Act).
Section 5, amending 16 U.S.C. 1540(g)(4)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for incorporating existing legal frameworks by reference, rather than reprinting lengthy statutory text. However, it also means that the full implications of the change require external legal knowledge.
Case for: Proponents argue that referencing EAJA ensures consistency with federal law governing attorney fee awards against the government, preventing what they see as overly generous or unwarranted payouts in ESA cases.
Case against: Opponents argue that by subjecting ESA fee awards to EAJA's limitations, the bill significantly curtails the ability of public interest groups to recover costs, thereby creating a major financial disincentive for citizen enforcement of the ESA.
Estimated impact: This change could substantially reduce the amount of attorney fees awarded to prevailing plaintiffs in ESA litigation, potentially impacting the financial viability of environmental advocacy groups that rely on such awards to fund their legal work.