Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
The bill amends the Endangered Species Act to ban taking for a trophy and importing trophies of species listed under Section 4 (threatened and endangered) within U.S. jurisdiction and territorial sea. It prevents the Secretary from issuing permits that would allow trophy taking or trophy importation for any species listed under Section 4.
Federal prohibition versus state wildlife management authority
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive amendment to the Endangered Species Act that clearly states its policy goal and specifies precise statutory changes.
The bill amends the Endangered Species Act to ban taking for a trophy and importing trophies of species listed under Section 4 (threatened and endangered) within U.S. jurisdiction and territorial sea.
It prevents the Secretary from issuing permits that would allow trophy taking or trophy importation for any species listed under Section 4.
The bill adds and clarifies an "antique"/exceptions provision and inserts a statutory definition of "trophy." The prohibitions apply to persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction and cover raw, processed, or manufactured parts obtained under hunting authorization.
Technically straightforward conservation measure but politically sensitive to hunting and state wildlife interests; Senate procedure and legal challenges reduce odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive amendment to the Endangered Species Act that clearly states its policy goal and specifies precise statutory changes. It integrates directly with existing ESA provisions by amending defined subsections and supplying a statutory definition of "trophy."
Federal prohibition versus state wildlife management authority
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Federal prohibition versus state wildlife management authority
Likely strongly supportive because the bill closes loopholes that allow trophy hunting of imperiled species and extends protections to threatened listings.
They will view it as strengthening species protections and reducing laundering of illegal wildlife parts.
Some may ask for clarity on scientific, subsistence, or tribal exceptions.
Mixed to cautiously supportive: agrees with stronger protections for imperiled species but concerned about tradeoffs for state wildlife management, enforcement practicality, and foreign conservation programs funded by regulated hunting.
Would seek precise carve-outs and implementation details.
Likely opposed: views the bill as federal overreach into traditional hunting, state wildlife management, and international conservation arrangements.
Concerned it will harm legal hunters and rural economies and could set precedent for further restrictions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically straightforward conservation measure but politically sensitive to hunting and state wildlife interests; Senate procedure and legal challenges reduce odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Federal prohibition versus state wildlife management authority
Technically straightforward conservation measure but politically sensitive to hunting and state wildlife interests; Senate procedure and le…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive amendment to the Endangered Species Act that clearly states its policy goal and specifies precise statutory changes. It integrates directly w…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.