v2 is a complete substitute amendment that significantly restructures and expands the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. It introduces new definitions, modifies listing and critical habitat designation processes, alters appropriations, and establishes new judicial review and exemption provisions, effectively renaming the Act to the "Endangered Species Recovery Act."
ESA Amendments Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Westerman, Bruce [R-AR-4]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 20, 2026
Bottom line
The bill fundamentally reforms the Endangered Species Act by prioritizing species recovery, increasing private landowner incentives, enhancing transparency, and limiting federal agency regulatory authority.
What it actually does
This bill, titled the 'ESA Amendments Act of 2025,' renames the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to the 'Endangered Species Recovery Act' and significantly amends its provisions. It aims to streamline the listing and recovery processes, incentivize private land conservation through new agreements and exemptions, increase transparency and accountability in agency decisions, and limit agency discretion in various aspects of species management and critical habitat designation. The bill introduces new definitions for key terms like 'foreseeable future' and 'habitat,' and modifies requirements for consultations, protective regulations, and judicial review.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current Endangered Species Act is overly burdensome, inefficient, and often discourages private landowners from engaging in conservation efforts. They contend that these amendments will optimize conservation outcomes by focusing resources on species most in need, providing clear incentives for private land stewardship, and ensuring greater transparency and accountability from federal agencies. Supporters believe the changes will lead to more effective species recovery while reducing economic impacts and regulatory uncertainty.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill significantly weakens the protections afforded to endangered and threatened species under the existing Act. They argue that redefining key terms, limiting critical habitat designations, and streamlining permitting processes could lead to reduced habitat protection, slower recovery efforts, and increased incidental take. Critics also express concern that the bill's provisions, such as caps on litigation costs and exemptions from environmental reviews, could undermine public oversight and make it harder to challenge agency decisions that harm species.
The bill is moderately long and makes extensive, detailed amendments to existing law, requiring careful reading to understand its full implications. The time given for public review would need to be substantial for a thorough understanding.
Sec. 2(a)
Redefinition of 'Foreseeable Future'
This provision amends the definition of 'foreseeable future' to mean a period of time within which the Secretary can determine that a threat factor is likely to occur, based on the best scientific and commercial data available. This limits the scope of future threats that can be considered when listing a species, potentially narrowing the criteria for determining endangered or threatened status.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that a time-limited definition of 'foreseeable future' introduces greater certainty and relies on more concrete, verifiable data, preventing speculative listings based on distant or uncertain future events. This ensures that listing decisions are based on immediate and demonstrable threats.
Critics contend
Opponents argue that limiting the 'foreseeable future' could prevent proactive conservation by ignoring long-term threats like climate change or habitat degradation that may not manifest fully within a narrowly defined timeframe. They contend this could lead to species being listed too late for effective recovery.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for scientific certainty in listing decisions against the need for proactive conservation that anticipates long-term environmental changes. It trades potential future protections for more immediate, data-driven decisions.
Sec. 2(d)
Redefinition of 'Habitat' for Critical Habitat Designations
This provision defines 'habitat' for critical habitat designations as the abiotic and biotic setting that currently or periodically contains resources and conditions necessary to support one or more life processes of the species. Crucially, it explicitly excludes areas outside the current or historic range and areas visited only by vagrant individuals. If a setting doesn't support all life processes, the species must be able to access other necessary areas from that setting.
Sec. 2(e)
Redefinition of 'Best Scientific and Commercial Data Available'
This provision redefines 'best scientific and commercial data available' to mean all relevant and objective scientific and commercial information, including credible and reliable data, quantitative analyses, and models. It explicitly states that this data must account for known errors, be applied using prevailing professional standards, and be impartially gathered and objectively applied without reliance on 'precautionary assumptions in favor of a species or other assumptions or policy prescriptions that bias the application.'
Sec. 5
Renaming the Endangered Species Act to the 'Endangered Species Recovery Act'
This section renames the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to the 'Endangered Species Recovery Act.' It also mandates that any future references in law, maps, regulations, or other U.S. records to the 'Endangered Species Act of 1973' shall be deemed references to the new name.
Sec. 101
National Listing Work Plan and Prioritization
This section requires the Secretary to submit a national listing work plan to Congress every fiscal year, scheduling findings, determinations, and critical habitat designations for 'covered species' over a five-fiscal-year period. It establishes a priority classification system (Priority 1-5) for species, with extensions possible for lower priority classifications, potentially delaying listing decisions for some species.
Sec. 201
Conservation Benefit Agreements on Private Lands
This section introduces 'Conservation Benefit Agreements' (CBAs) for private landowners and other covered parties. These agreements provide assurances that if a species becomes listed after the agreement's effective date, no additional conservation measures or land/resource use restrictions will be imposed. The Secretary must approve complete proposed agreements within 120 days and issue incidental take permits if the species is listed. CBAs are exempt from NEPA and Section 7 consultation.
Sec. 203
NEPA Exemption for Incidental Take Permits
This section explicitly states that the issuance of an incidental take permit under Section 10(a)(2) of the ESA shall not be considered a major Federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This means that federal agencies will not be required to conduct environmental impact statements or environmental assessments for the issuance of these permits.
Sec. 301
Protective Regulations for Threatened Species and State Recovery Strategies
This section amends how protective regulations for threatened species are issued. The Secretary must consider conservation and economic effects. For regulations prohibiting certain acts, the Secretary must establish objective, incremental recovery goals, decrease stringency as goals are met, and allow for State management once goals are met. States can also develop recovery strategies for threatened or candidate species, which, if approved by the Secretary, become the basis for federal regulations within that State.
Sec. 304(a)
Revised 'Not Prudent' Determinations for Critical Habitat
This section revises the criteria for determining when it is 'not prudent' to designate critical habitat. It allows the Secretary to make such a determination if the species is threatened due to take or human activity and designation would increase such activity, or if the threat cannot be addressed by Section 7 consultations, or if the species primarily occurs outside the U.S. and U.S. areas provide negligible conservation value.
Sec. 304(b)
Exclusion of Private Land from Critical Habitat Designation
This section prohibits the Secretary from designating privately owned or controlled land as critical habitat if it is subject to a land management plan that is similar to an integrated natural resources management plan, prepared in cooperation with federal/state agencies, includes activities that conserve the species, is determined to increase or maintain the species population, and minimizes incidental take. This provides a pathway for private landowners to avoid critical habitat designation through approved management plans.
Sec. 401
Requirement to Publish Basis for Listings and Critical Habitat Designations Online
This section mandates that the Secretary make publicly available on the applicable department's website the 'best scientific and commercial data available' used as the basis for each regulation (including proposed regulations) for species listings and critical habitat designations. It includes exceptions for state laws prohibiting disclosure of personal information and for classified Department of War information, and explicitly excludes GPS coordinates or other geographically specific species location information.
Sec. 404
Award of Litigation Costs to Prevailing Parties (Attorney Fee Caps)
This section amends the rules for awarding litigation costs (including attorney and expert witness fees) in ESA citizen suits. It caps attorney fees at $125 per hour (unless a higher rate is justified by cost of living or special factors) and sets a total cap of $200,000 per suit. It also defines 'eligible party' to exclude individuals with high net worth or organizations with high net worth/employees, and parties who have sought fees in 3 or more instances in the preceding 12 months.
Sec. 405
Analysis of Impacts and Benefits of Listing Determinations
This section requires the Secretary, concurrently with determining whether a species is threatened or endangered, to prepare an analysis of the economic effect, effects on national security, effects on human health and safety, and any other relevant effect of such determination. This analysis must be prepared in coordination with affected States, local governments, and Tribes, but it explicitly states that this analysis shall not delay the determination or change the criteria used for it.
Sec. 501
Limitation on Reasonable and Prudent Measures
This section amends Section 7(b)(4) of the ESA, which deals with incidental take statements. It clarifies that reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) must minimize incidental take and explicitly states that RPMs 'do not propose, recommend, or require the Federal agency or the applicant concerned, if any, to mitigate or offset such impact.' It also removes a clause that allowed the Secretary to suggest modifications to the proposed action.
Sec. 502
Successive Consultations and 10-Year Review
This section introduces a new requirement for ongoing agency actions that have adopted a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) or reasonable and prudent measure (RPM). In any subsequent consultation occurring 10 years or more after the initial consultation, the Secretary must determine if continuing the RPA/RPM will 'materially increase the likelihood of and reduce the time for recovery' of the species. If not, the federal agency must discontinue its implementation.
Sec. 503
Clarifying 'Jeopardy' and Effects of the Action
This section clarifies how the Secretary determines the 'effects of the action' in Section 7 consultations. It states that only effects 'caused by the action itself and are reasonably certain to occur' may be considered, based on 'clear and substantial information.' It lists factors for determining causation and reasonable certainty, and explicitly excludes effects that are remote in time or geography, or those the agency cannot prevent due to limited authority. Beneficial effects proposed by the agency or applicant must be considered.
Sec. 506
Expansion of Exemption Process and Eligibility under Section 7
This section significantly expands the eligibility and criteria for obtaining an exemption from Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. A Federal agency, State Governor, or permit/license applicant can now apply for an exemption if a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) would 'impair national security' or 'result in significant adverse national or regional economic impacts.' The exemption process now explicitly involves consultation with the National Security Council and the Director of the National Economic Council.
Sec. 601
Permits for CITES-Listed Species (Non-Native)
This section amends the ESA to allow the export or import of fish or wildlife listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA (but not native to the U.S.) to be lawful under the ESA if they are also listed in CITES Appendix I or II, and all CITES and other specified ESA requirements (subsections (d), (e), and (f)) are satisfied. This essentially defers to CITES standards for non-native species that are also ESA-listed.
Sec. 701
Limiting Agency Regulations
This section amends Section 11(f) of the ESA, which grants the Secretary authority to promulgate regulations. It clarifies that this authority is limited to enforcing 'this section and section 8A' (which deals with international cooperation). It explicitly states that this subsection 'may not be construed to be an independent source of authority to promulgate regulations to enforce the provisions of this Act other than those included in this section and section 8A.'
The bill redefines several fundamental terms of the Endangered Species Act: 'foreseeable future' (limiting its scope), 'habitat' (excluding areas outside current/historic range or vagrant visits for critical habitat), and 'best scientific and commercial data available' (requiring objectivity and prohibiting precautionary assumptions).
Sec. 2(a), (d), (e)
Why it matters:While definitions are inherently technical, these particular redefinitions have profound policy implications that fundamentally alter how the ESA is interpreted and applied, making their placement in a definitions section potentially evasive of direct policy debate.
Case for: Proponents argue these redefinitions bring greater scientific rigor, clarity, and predictability to ESA decisions, preventing speculative listings or habitat designations based on uncertain future events or overly cautious assumptions. They believe it aligns the Act with a more objective, data-driven approach.
Case against: Opponents argue that these redefinitions weaken the Act by limiting its ability to address long-term threats (like climate change), protect future recovery habitat, and apply precautionary principles in the face of scientific uncertainty. They contend these changes could lead to fewer species protections and slower recovery.
Estimated impact: These redefinitions will fundamentally alter the legal and scientific framework for all future ESA decisions, impacting every aspect of species listing, critical habitat designation, and consultation.
The issuance of an incidental take permit under Section 10(a) is explicitly exempted from being considered a major Federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Sec. 203
Why it matters:This exemption removes a significant layer of environmental review and public participation. While placed within a section on incentivizing private land conservation, its broad application to all incidental take permits makes it a substantial policy shift that might face more scrutiny if highlighted separately.
Case for: Proponents argue that NEPA review for incidental take permits is redundant, as the ESA already requires extensive environmental analysis. They believe this exemption streamlines the permitting process, reduces administrative burdens and delays, and encourages more voluntary conservation by making the regulatory framework less cumbersome.
Case against: Opponents argue that NEPA provides a critical layer of public transparency and environmental review, ensuring that all potential impacts of projects affecting listed species are thoroughly considered and disclosed. Removing this requirement could lead to less informed decisions and increased harm to species and their habitats.
Estimated impact: This will eliminate NEPA review for all incidental take permits, affecting numerous development projects and potentially reducing public oversight of their environmental impacts.
Caps attorney fees in ESA citizen suits at $125/hour (with limited exceptions) and a total of $200,000 per suit, and restricts who qualifies as an 'eligible party' to recover fees.
Sec. 404
Why it matters:The caps on attorney fees are a highly contentious policy change that directly impacts the ability of environmental and public interest groups to enforce the ESA through litigation. Placing it within an existing, complex legal section may make it less immediately apparent to a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents argue that these caps are necessary to prevent excessive litigation and curb what they see as abuses of the citizen suit provision, where legal fees can become a primary driver for lawsuits. They contend it will reduce costs for taxpayers and agencies, allowing resources to be focused on conservation.
Case against: Opponents argue that these caps severely undermine the citizen suit provision, which is a critical enforcement mechanism of the ESA. They contend that limiting fee recovery will make it financially impossible for many public interest groups to challenge agency actions, effectively reducing accountability and species protection.
Estimated impact: This will significantly reduce the financial viability of ESA citizen suits for many plaintiffs, potentially leading to a decrease in litigation and a reduction in external oversight of agency compliance.