House committees meet on environmental policy

Clashes over critical natural resource policy and who gets to make decisions on their implementation took center stage during hearings and markups in the House earlier this week.

On July 15, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies advanced its FY2026 spending bill. The legislation includes sweeping cuts that could have serious implications for wildlife, public lands and environmental protection.

The bill proposes a 23% cut to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a 6% overall reduction—or $108.7 million in cuts—to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The National Park Service will also face a 6% cut amounting to $2.54 billion less than FY2025. The Bureau of Land Management, which oversees over 245 million acres of public land, faces an 8% cut, or $110.4 million. The U.S. Geological Survey, a key science agency supporting wildlife research and land management, would be funded 5.6% below FY2025 levels. Meanwhile, the U.S. Forest Service would receive $16.8 million less in funding compared to FY2025.

Deep divides were visible over how, and by whom, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) should be executed. Major cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, especially those that impact the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, were a major point of discussion. Cuts were framed as part of a broader effort to limit regulatory burdens and redirect resources toward American energy independence. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) pushed back on this assertion, warning that stripping EPA’s support would leave state and local governments facing “unfunded mandates,” forcing them to raise taxes, scale back essential services and cut important research on emerging pollutants, such as PFAS—so-called “forever chemicals.” The conversation widened into a broader reckoning with legislative overreach and the growing use of appropriations bills to rewrite environmental policy by decree.

In addition to setting spending levels for federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service, part of the significance of appropriations bill lies in the policy riders embedded throughout. Policy riders are provisions added to appropriations bills that direct, limit and prohibit how federal agencies use the funds they receive. As written, the bill will cut funding for endangered species by two-thirds, impacting a variety of currently listed species under the ESA, such as the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), gray wolf (Canis lupus) and wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus), as well as managed hunting, fishing and land use. It would also mandate issuing at least four onshore oil and gas lease sales in any state with available land, including Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Nevada and Alaska.

These riders reflect a broader legislative push seen in bills like H.R. 281, which seeks to delist Yellowstone grizzlies and bar judicial review, and H.R. 556—the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2025. Those bills were discussed during this week’s House Committee on Natural Resources full committee markup of 12 bills supporting outdoor access, science-based species management, outdoor recreation and more. Lawmakers on both sides invoked “science-based management” but arrived at vastly different conclusions while discussing the bills. 

Discussion about the use of lead ammo and tackle on public lands was also charged. H.R. 556 would prohibit blanket restrictions on lead ammunition and tackle unless federal agencies can prove that wildlife declines on specific units of land are primarily caused by lead exposure. In addition, the act states that agencies may not issue regulations relating to the level of lead in ammunition or tackle to be used on federal land or water. Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA) defended the bill as a call for “science-based, site-specific decision-making,” emphasizing the need for better data rather than “arbitrary and capricious” restrictions. He criticized his opponents, who he accused of “only [using] science when it supports your argument.”

Opponents, however, argued the bill would tie the hands of land managers, create unattainable scientific thresholds and dangerously delay protective action. “The science on lead is clear,” said Rep. Maxine Drexlerac (R‑VA), noting the contradiction of demanding more data while underfunding monitoring. “We’ve fired the data gatherers across the country,” she said. She remarked that “it’s a false choice.” To ask for more data while firing those that collect it. Huffman echoed concerns and asserted that “It’s a bad bill.” Wittman insisted that the bill isn’t a denial of science but a call for its appropriate use.

Committee members discussed H.R. 281, the “Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2025,” introduced by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY), which seeks to remove ESA protections for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear population and shift management authority to the states. The bill also includes a provision to block judicial review of the delisting decision. These are in line with Rep. Bruce Westerman’s (R‑AR) H.R. 1897 ESA Amendments Act of 2025, which aims to shift authority to the state and limit judicial interactions.

This multi-pronged effort signals a coordinated effort to reshape environmental policy by changing bedrock environmental legislation, policy, and associated sources of federal funding. Lawmakers are employing every available tactic, including appropriations, legislation, and political messaging, to advance a deregulatory agenda with long-lasting consequences for wildlife, public lands, and conservation policy in the U.S.

TWS chapters, sections and working groups have identified the conservation of global biodiversity and conservation funding as policy priorities for The Wildlife Society. TWS is actively following and engaged in the U.S. congressional appropriations process and encourages member engagement. Visit the Conservation Affairs Network Policy Toolkit to learn more about using your voice to support the implementation of critical legislation for conserving biodiversity, like the ESA.