House pauses ESA reform amid controversy
A highly-anticipated move to reform the Endangered Species Act (ESA) recently hit an unexpected delay when House leadership pulled the legislation from the floor amid growing opposition.
Known as the ESA Amendments Act, the bill represents one of the largest updates to the ESA proposed in decades and is sponsored by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR).
As part of the longstanding, heated debate, supporters argue changes should be made to modernize the ESA and provide regulatory certainty to landowners, while critics believe Westerman’s proposal would significantly weaken protections for at-risk species.
A surprise delay
According to an April 22 Politico article, the House was scheduled to vote on the bill during the week of April 20. However, on April 22, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) pulled the bill from consideration without a public explanation.
Although Westerman previously told Politico the legislation had been delayed by more pressing measures, other sources report opposition from several Republican lawmakers played a key role in halting the vote this time around.
Among those voicing concern were Reps. Anna Paulina Luna and Maria Elvira Salazar (both R-FL), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Andrew Garbarino (R-NY).
The ESA Amendments Act
The ESA Amendments Act, proposed late in 2025, aims to make several changes to how species are listed and managed under federal law.
According to an opinion column penned by Westerman and Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA) in AgriPulse on Oct. 11, 2024, the legislation would implement measures to return power to state and local officials who they say “understand species habitat better than career bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.”
Other key provisions include requiring an economic impact analyses when determining whether a species should be listed as endangered or threatened, limiting attorneys’ fees in ESA-related litigation, instilling greater transparency and accountability in recovery efforts and adjusting protections as species begin to recover.
The two argue, although it was created with good intentions, the ESA has largely drifted away from its original intent, citing a relatively small number of species which have actually been delisted due to recovery.
“In its 50 years, the ESA has only recovered around three percent of listed species. Only the federal government would consider this a success story,” Westerman and Newhouse write. “It is abundantly clear the ESA has failed in its intended mission of species recovery. The only area in which the law has succeeded is as a mechanism for environmental activists to impede, delay and kill economic development across rural and Western America, while trampling on the rights of private landowners.”
A longstanding debate
Others in support of the ESA Amendments Act agree changes would bring balance to the ESA’s “unpredictable and overly burdensome” system.
On an April 21 segment of the American Farm Bureau Federation’s (AFBF) Newsline radio report, AFBF Senior Director of Government Affairs Shelby Hagenauer expresses support for ESA reform, especially provisions aimed at encouraging proactive conservation, such as the Conservation Benefit Agreements.
“If landowners agree to take certain actions to benefit a species that could be listed in the future and it does get listed, the landowners are protected from additional restrictions,” Hagenauer says. “It also updates the way federal agencies like the Western water-providing Bureau of Reclamation consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service about potential impacts of activities on a listed species.”
Hagenauer further points to a need for consistency in how federal agencies implement the law.
“Unfortunately, it has not been substantially updated in decades, so the time is now,” she says. “In the absence of updates to the law by Congress, federal agencies are rewriting regulations every four or eight years, depending on the policy priorities of the administration in power. This kind of back and forth is very uncertain for farmers and ranchers who rely on a stable regulatory environment.”
Those on the other side of the debate, however, believe the ESA has been highly effective, arguing the majority of listed species have avoided extinction.
They also warn Westerman’s proposal could delay protections for vulnerable species and weaken habitat designations, while some provisions in the bill would allow increased take of threatened species and limit the role of federal agencies in managing recovery efforts.
Hannah Bugas is the managing editor of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup. Send comments on this article to roundup@wylr.net.
