Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
The bill immediately removes seven species from the lists of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It also amends section 4(a) of the ESA to prohibit the Secretary from determining that the Bukharan markhor is a threatened or endangered species.
Progressives emphasize conservation harm and lack of science.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a direct and legally specific substantive amendment to the Endangered Species Act: it precisely names species to be removed and inserts a clear prohibition on listing a subspecies.
The bill immediately removes seven species from the lists of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
It also amends section 4(a) of the ESA to prohibit the Secretary from determining that the Bukharan markhor is a threatened or endangered species.
The removals are made 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.'
Narrow substantive change with limited fiscal impact but likely opposition from environmental groups and absent compromise features reduces prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a direct and legally specific substantive amendment to the Endangered Species Act: it precisely names species to be removed and inserts a clear prohibition on listing a subspecies. The statutory edits are explicit and readily implementable, but the bill omits contextual findings, fiscal or administrative guidance, monitoring or oversight mechanisms, and treatment of potential interactions with other statutory or regulatory elements.
Progressives emphasize conservation harm and lack of science.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize conservation harm and lack of science.
Likely to oppose the bill as written.
Critics would note the bill provides no scientific findings or recovery documentation and appears to remove protections by statute rather than through ESA procedures.
Cautious and mixed.
A practical centrist would ask for the scientific record, clear findings, and explanation for statutory delisting instead of normal ESA rulemaking.
Likely to support the bill.
Supporters would view it as removing unnecessary or extraterritorial regulatory burdens and returning discretion to Congress rather than expansive agency listing.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow substantive change with limited fiscal impact but likely opposition from environmental groups and absent compromise features reduces prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize conservation harm and lack of science.
Narrow substantive change with limited fiscal impact but likely opposition from environmental groups and absent compromise features reduces…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a direct and legally specific substantive amendment to the Endangered Species Act: it precisely names species to be removed and inserts a clear prohibition on list…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.