Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The bill bars the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture from prohibiting the use of lead ammunition or fishing tackle on federal lands and waters that are made available for hunting or fishing, and from issuing regulations setting lead levels in such ammunition or tackle. It preserves existing regulatory exceptions in 50 C.F.R. parts 20.21 and 20.108 and allows site‑specific prohibitions where field data show wildlife declines primarily caused by lead, provided state law or state fish and wildlife policy or approval is satisfied.
Federal conservation authority versus preventing federal regulatory reach
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear and narrow substantive rule (prohibiting the Secretaries from banning or regulating lead ammunition or tackle on Federal hunting/fishing lands except in defined unit-level circumstances) but leaves multiple operational and fiscal details unspecified.
The bill bars the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture from prohibiting the use of lead ammunition or fishing tackle on federal lands and waters that are made available for hunting or fishing, and from issuing regulations setting lead levels in such ammunition or tackle.
It preserves existing regulatory exceptions in 50 C.F.R. parts 20.21 and 20.108 and allows site‑specific prohibitions where field data show wildlife declines primarily caused by lead, provided state law or state fish and wildlife policy or approval is satisfied.
Agencies must explain in a Federal Register notice how any site‑specific prohibition meets those requirements.
Content is narrow but ideologically charged and limits federal regulatory power—easier in a chamber aligned with hunting constituencies, harder in the Senate.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear and narrow substantive rule (prohibiting the Secretaries from banning or regulating lead ammunition or tackle on Federal hunting/fishing lands except in defined unit-level circumstances) but leaves multiple operational and fiscal details unspecified.
Federal conservation authority versus preventing federal regulatory reach
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
The clearest budget scorecard attached to this bill: what it changes for direct spending, revenue, and the deficit.
As reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on November 25,2025
Federal conservation authority versus preventing federal regulatory reach
Likely views the bill as a federal preemption that would limit science‑based protections for wildlife and public health.
Sees it as restricting agency tools to reduce lead poisoning among birds and scavengers, and potentially increasing human exposure from game meat.
Will weigh the bill’s protection of hunting access against constraints on federal conservation tools.
Appreciates the site‑specific exception and state coordination, but worries about vague data standards and unequal protections across units.
Likely supports the bill as a safeguard against federal regulatory overreach that would preserve hunters’ and anglers’ access and avoid new equipment costs.
Views federal preemption of lead restrictions as protection for rural stakeholders.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow but ideologically charged and limits federal regulatory power—easier in a chamber aligned with hunting constituencies, harder in the Senate.
The House passed this bill. It now goes to the other chamber, and eventually to the President for signature.
The final vote on whether the bill becomes law (pending the other chamber and the President).
The attempt to send the bill back to committee failed. The bill continues moving forward.
A motion to recommit sends a bill back to committee, often as a last-ditch attempt to stop it.
Federal conservation authority versus preventing federal regulatory reach
Content is narrow but ideologically charged and limits federal regulatory power—easier in a chamber aligned with hunting constituencies, ha…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear and narrow substantive rule (prohibiting the Secretaries from banning or regulating lead ammunition or tackle on Federal hunting/fishing lands exc…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.